The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Perhaps "they" copied Philo?  We know that there was intellectual tension between Hellenized Jews and, let's call them "fundie" jews as far back as the Seleucid Empire days.

Remember the times, First Century Egypt.  While people did do a lot of traveling it's highly doubtful that the writings of some nut in dusty Egypt flittered around the Med influencing pockets of people.  No copy machines, typewriters, newspapers, phones, radio, tv, internet.  I gotta call fraud on Philo.

[Minimalist]

Remember the times, First Century Egypt.

Precisely.  Alexandria was the intellectual center of the world not to mention a major port where ships from all over the known world arrived. Ideas follow the commercial lanes, too.  Not just amphorae of wine.   Further, Philo was the uncle of Tiberius Julius Alexander, procurator of Judaea and later on Prefect of Egypt.  So what you have is a politically well-connected, wealthy, intellectual living at precisely the right place at precisely the right time.

[robvalue]

54 pages and no one can tell me why I should believe this particular set of "eye witness accounts" of absurd sounding claims over any other ridiculous things that any seemingly otherwise sane person may tell me.

Of course, this is even after giving every advantage possible. To put my sceptic armor on properly, I'd ask for a demonstration that in fact anything at all in the bible is true except what has been independently verified. And that is very little. It's a story book. It starts out like a story book, it reads like a story book. It does nothing to convince me that it's anything else. Story books can have a historical basis, that doesn't make the story true. I don't believe the gospels were eye witness accounts, but really I don't care if they are, because someone can be an "eye witness" then go on to make shit up. It's really not that hard.

I'd ask why I should think these accounts are anything other than fiction, very loosely based on some guy wandering about at the time. Or rather, dead at the time of writing. Especially since they totally resemble something that has been made up. Apart from conceding there may well have been a real person or persons in the middle of the story, I don't believe a word of what is written in the gospels (besides mundane details) because I have no reason to. That is scepticism. It's the same reason christians reject all other religions. It's the same reason muslims reject all other religions. It's the same reason every religion rejects every other religion. They just can't or won't shine that sceptical light on themselves.

[vorlon13]

54 pages, and has even a single scripture cherry picking christer arguing for historical reliability of the New Testament 'seen the light' and embraced Literalism and Scriptural Inerrancy ??

Anyone ??


[crickets chirping]

[Minimalist]

54 pages and no one can tell me why I should believe this particular set of "eye witness accounts" of absurd sounding claims over any other ridiculous things that any seemingly otherwise sane person may tell me.

It's a jesus freak brain fart that these were eye-witness accounts...unreliable as eye-witness accounts would be anyway.  No, these are anonymous scribblings of later writers.

[DeistPaladin]

54 pages and no one can tell me why I should believe this particular set of "eye witness accounts" of absurd sounding claims over any other ridiculous things that any seemingly otherwise sane person may tell me.

It's a jesus freak brain fart that these were eye-witness accounts...unreliable as eye-witness accounts would be anyway.  No, these are anonymous scribblings of later writers.

What's funny is two of the four are not even attributed to "eye-witnesses", taking Christian claims of authorship at face value. Mark was no witness and neither was Luke. Luke even says so in his opening. And Mark was the original, on which Matt and Luke were clearly based. This stuff really fails right out of the gate. 

[Randy Carson]

You have my permission to cheat and peek ahead and what's to come. I've already posted a link to my debate with a Christian on "Are the Gospels Based On A True Story?".

Please note how much wiggle room I offered my Christian opponent. 

The topic wasn't "did the resurrection happen?" It was not "Are the Gospels fully accurate as historical accounts". No, the topic was, "is there any reason to think there might have been a true story behind all this stuff?" 

I gave him as much of a sporting chance as I could. Smarter Christian apologists refused to pick up that gauntlet because they knew what was coming. This guy that took the challenge had no clue. 

I spanked him so badly he abandoned the debate. He ran away with his tail tucked between his legs. I almost felt sorry for the poor guy. 

I'm reading it now...and in your first few paragraphs you've already made a big deal over the "10-year pregnancy" of Mary. Perhaps you might consider an alternative dating scheme. Just Google:

luke census quirinius jimmy akin

There are actually numerous articles on this topic by Akin at Strange Notions. Google will find them for you.

[Minimalist]

We know that idiot jesus freaks try to twist their scrotums into pretzels in efforts to make luke = matty on the Quirinius routine.  Fortunately, real historians have already dealt with the issue.


http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...inius.html

Conclusion

There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus.

Now, go read your bible....or jerk off.  The two activities being similar.

[Mudhammam]

"Now, go read your bible....or jerk off. The two activities being similar."

Haha. Gonna remember that one.

[Randy Carson]

What's funny is two of the four are not even attributed to "eye-witnesses", taking Christian claims of authorship at face value. Mark was no witness and neither was Luke. Luke even says so in his opening.

What does Luke say?

And Mark was the original, on which Matt and Luke were clearly based.

Who was Mark's source?