The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Minimalist]

YOU?  Skeptical of anything relating to your silly fairy tales?  Don't make me laugh.

[robvalue]

Again, you're begging the question.

"What I know about Jesus".

Your case is trying to prove what you know about it, and you're using it to prove the conclusion.

It may be you really can't see the problem with your method, I don't know. It should be clear to anyone without a vested interest in Christianity being true. I'm going to have to give up as I'm just repeating myself now.

Your argument is supposed to convince me about biblical claims. And if you have to resort to "Well I know things about Jesus that are true" the game is up.

[Cyberman]

Ah, the "you just don't want to hear the evidence" card. The last desperate move of someone with nothing compelling to say, and knows it.

[Whateverist]

The four gospels contain clear support for the resurrection of Jesus which He offered as proof of His claims.

Bullshit.

The Mahabaratta gives accounts of numerous Hindu gods.  My guess is you don't think those are "historical."

^This hasn't been answered.^

Until it is I will go on assuming that the historical credentials of the bible are as irrelevant as those of the Mahabaratta.

[Minimalist]

He's smart enough to know a trap when he sees it.

All religion thrives on "special pleading."

[Randy Carson]

Again, you're begging the question.

"What I know about Jesus".

Your case is trying to prove what you know about it, and you're using it to prove the conclusion.

It may be you really can't see the problem with your method, I don't know. It should be clear to anyone without a vested interest in Christianity being true. I'm going to have to give up as I'm just repeating myself now.

Your argument is supposed to convince me about biblical claims. And if you have to resort to "Well I know things about Jesus that are true" the game is up.

I haven't "resorted" to anything.

I'm simply pointing out that there are a dozen or so points contained in my posts which point to the conclusion the the NT is historically reliable. And because the general reliability of the authors should cause us to grant them the benefit of the doubt, then I think all of this justifies a bit more effort on your part beyond saying "I don't believe there is any evidence." That's simply untrue. There is evidence.

Perhaps we can pick this up again later.

[Minimalist]

I'm simply pointing out that there are a dozen or so points contained in my posts which point to the conclusion the the NT is historically reliable.

The delusion is strong with this one.

[robvalue]

Consider your position, Randy.

In your example to me, we have 4 incredibly reliable witnesses in court. They are impeccable, as reliable as anyone has ever been. They then tell us some supernatural account of events.

Now, there are only two options. We either just believe them, or we are sceptical. And apparently, we need you to stand there and listen to the particular claim to tell us which it should be. What gives you this authority? If they talk about Jesus doing what you want Jesus to do, we should just believe them. If they say anything contrary to your story, we should be sceptical. Can you see how ridiculous this is?

I see you're using the tu quoque on my position. Yes, I'm an atheist because there isn't even a coherent definition of a god, let alone any proof. That's not the subject of this discussion. A book is not proof, it is the claim: as shown by the fact that you reject every other holy book but your own. If God wants to come talk to me, he's quite welcome. I don't believe anyone has had an experience with God, I think it's far more likely it's all in people's heads.

I understand that to you this stuff is "just true". But the whole of this discussion is demonstrating that the reasons for this belief are not easily rationalised.

You are also making a false dichotomy. Either the gospels are 100% true, or they are all false. So if we can show part of them to be true, they are all true. No. Parts of it could be true, parts of it false. And each part needs its own verification. If we showed the Quran to be historically accurate, you'd still just refuse to believe when it came to the supernatural parts.

[downbeatplumb]

If someone were to claim they had witnessed a supernatural event I would assume they were either deluded or lying.

Now if they were to show me video evidence for the event I would know that they were lying and good with video editing equipment.

My wife is a spiritualist and used to show me pictures (Victorian & Edwardian) of people with plasma emerging from their mouths, when I pointed out that it looked just like gauze being held in the mouth she stopped showing me the pictures.

people make shit up all the time.

And deluded idiots believe it.

[Randy Carson]

Consider your position, Randy.

In your example to me, we have 4 incredibly reliable witnesses in court. They are impeccable, as reliable as anyone has ever been. They then tell us some supernatural account of events.

Now, there are only two options. We either just believe them, or we are sceptical. And apparently, we need you to stand there and listen to the particular claim to tell us which it should be. What gives you this authority? If they talk about Jesus doing what you want Jesus to do, we should just believe them. If they say anything contrary to your story, we should be sceptical. Can you see how ridiculous this is?

In the example, our courts are not accustomed to dealing with such claims. After all, they don't come up very often, do they? (I have this picture of George Burns walking into the courtroom saying, "I'll take it from here" in the movie Oh, God!)

However, the Jews DID know how to test anyone who claimed to speak for God, and false prophets were stoned to death. So, how did God distinguish his real prophets from the false ones? By performing supernatural signs on their behalf. Moses got ten as evidence that Pharaoh should let Israel go. The Israelites got manna from heaven as evidence that Moses should be listened to. And the confrontation between Elijah and the prophets of Baal is actually pretty hilarious. You can read about it in 1 Kings 18 (I'm not allowed to post links, yet. Sorry.)

So, if these four witnesses were to get my attention, they would need to demonstrate that they were true prophets. Otherwise...

I see you're using the tu quoque on my position. Yes, I'm an atheist because there isn't even a coherent definition of a god, let alone any proof.

Try this:

God is the supernatural creator of the universe, a being that is necessary (cannot fail to exist), eternal (not bound by time), immaterial (not bound by space), all-powerful, and all-knowing. Finally, most Western theologians and philosophers claim that God is all-good, or he is the perfect embodiment of the virtues of love, justice, and every other good we know. He is, as St. Anselm of Canterbury declared, the being “than which no greater can be thought.”

That's not the subject of this discussion. A book is not proof, it is the claim: as shown by the fact that you reject every other holy book but your own. If God wants to come talk to me, he's quite welcome. I don't believe anyone has had an experience with God, I think it's far more likely it's all in people's heads.

At the risk of all kinds of mockery, have you ever gone to talk to Him?

You are also making a false dichotomy. Either the gospels are 100% true, or they are all false. So if we can show part of them to be true, they are all true. No. Parts of it could be true, parts of it false. And each part needs its own verification.

I'm not sure that's how life really works, is it?

If general reliability is established, the assumption is that the whole is factual unless there is good reason to think otherwise. This is a way for a document to earn our trust. If that happens, then a historically favorable presumption prevails. Once established as a generally reliable document, a historically favorable presumption prevails at that point, and the burden of proof falls on the deniers. - Scott M. Sullivan, PhD