Smullyan-esque

Anonymous- merely opinion? You have access to a signed first edition?

Cannot be dated reliably - merely opinion? You have reliable dates?

Based around supernatural events - merely opinion? Miracles are not supernatural?

Mythic themes - While it might be opinion that the stories are myth or not, the THEMES are pretty clearly mythic.

Themes from Hebrew Scripture - you think this is opinon? What are you smoking?

Things that are clearly opinion: "historical value is virtually null" and "they lack any indicia of historic reliability". Opinon, yes, but informed opinion.

Sauron

Hm. Well, to me it seems that Toto's statements are true in the majority.

Let's select one as a case in point. Perhaps you could go into detail on what historical value you think the gospels have, then?

David B

Well, Roger, I have a high opinion of your scholarship, and, indeed, generally of your dispassionate scholarship.

So I'd be curious to know where exactly you differ from Toto.

I'd appreciate an overview of how the gospels can be attributed to named individuals, and how accurately they can be dated. Do you dispute that they are based around alleged supernatural events? If so, how? Do you dispute that they contain mythic themes? If so, how? Do you dispute that they are based about themes from Hebrew Scriptures? if so, how?

And what indications of historic reliability do they have?

Contemporary non gospel accounts? Archaeological evidence? Internal consistency? What?

David B (wonders if you have not overstated your case)

aa5874

Goldenroad, I also suggest your read 'Against heresies' by Irenaeus, so that you get an idea of the different doctrines around in the 2nd century. There is a chance that your belief maybe heresy.

TheBear

"The Gospels are reliable"

They are?

Why aren't any of Jesus' spectacular events, (such as the feeding of a multitude of over 5,000, or the Beatitudes speech with the multitude of attendees, or the raising Lazarus from the dead), chronicled by any of the cities and towns they were supposed to have taken place?

TheBear

"The Gospels are reliable"

Even though some of the gospel writings weren't authored for over a hundred years after the storyline events.

Johnny Skeptic

Who said that the apostles fabricated anything? There is no evidence that they wrote any of the Gospels. In addition, none of the Gospel writers ever claimed that they saw Jesus perfomed miracles. I doubt that the apostles ever said anything that the Gospel writers said that they said.

Regarding the supposedly fulfilled prophecies, it is not at all difficult to falsely claim that a prophecy is fulfilled after the fact.

Now will you please tell us why God does not wish to clearly prove to everyone that he can predict the future? In addition, will you please tell us why God wants people to know what will happen in the future?

Even if God can predict the future, so what? He is a sinner according to his own standards.

Are you by any chance an inerrantist? If so, where is your evidence that the Bible in inerrant?

Not that it matters much, but may I ask how old you are? I am going to guess that you are from 17-25 years of age. Don't get me wrong, there is a 14 year old atheist named Genesis Nemesis who is amazingly advanced for a 14 year old.

goldenroad

Okay yall, I don't want to be classified as a bible fed Christian that eats whats he's fed from the scriptures, uses arguments that everyone else uses, and doesn't study the bible and related sources. (for the last person who wrote before me) I'm fifteen and would like to learn all i can. Some of my arguments i've heard before, some i come up with on my own but i won't post anything without researching the facts and haven't. I joined this website for several reasons. First and formost i want to know what atheists think. Second, i want to see how Christiantity holds up to atheistic arguments (i've already heard many). Lastly, i want to sharpen my knowledge and hopefully give insight to those reading this forum. I've heard several people respond to my arguments so far and to be honest, i haven't been impressed with the atheistic arguments (i do try to approach everything with an open mind). If all documents were judged the same way the bible is judged here i don't suppose we would have any reliable documents. Imagine if 2000 yrs from now people didn't believe that America ever existed because the atom bomb is too outlandish and the documents don't meet there criteria. I think its the same way regarding the bible. Every little fact is being questioned in doing so you are missing the big picture of what happened. Sure, most factual disputes and dating issues can be easily cleared up with a little research (though it seems as though most are not willing to do so) but when you approach something like this with a closed mind you are going to think what you want to think and no fact is going to dissuade you no matter how convincing. So, basically i want to spread the truth and know the truth better. If my arguments seem puny, then i'll admit i'm young and inexperienced but hopefully i'll grow mentally and become more convincing.

Sauron

That's not very likely. If you actually *had* heard so many arguments, then you wouldn't be posting the arguments you've posted here recently. Why? Because the arguments you posted are some of the easiest ones to shoot down.

Insight? Into what?

You'll find that most people reading this forum already encountered and dismissed your arguments years ago. You aren't likely to provide insight to anyone here.

Then you should go back and re-read the arguments. You've been given a list of criteria and you were corrected on the question of who wrote the gospels, but you've ignored those posts.

And you'd be wrong in supposing that. You've created a bogus comparison. Let's see if you can figure out why.

Then you're wrong.

1. We have physical evidence from multiple lines of investigation that demonstrate the existence of the United States, and the various claims about the USA.

2. There's nothing supernatural or contrary to fact about how an atomic bomb works.

You can't say the same thing (#1 or #2) about the bible and its key claims.

If all the little claims are questionable, then maybe the big claims are also questionable. If the document isn't reliable in minor events, then how can it be trusted to accurately record large events?

Incorrect. The factual problems and date issues are *not* cleared up with a little research. As for who is (or isn't) willing to do research - I think you'll find that the people here have done a lot more research than you have in your short fifteen years.

Sounds like you already have your mind made up about what the truth is. Pretty ironic, since you just got through trying to tell us that we were the ones with closed minds. Yet here you are admitting that you've already decided what the truth is.

For someone who doesn't even understand the subject material, that's a pretty silly position to be in.

Perhaps you will. In the meantime, however, try to refrain from casting aspersions about other people's level of knowledge. That's a good way to get your ass kicked in a debate.

Kosh

A little advice then. Don't come in making such a strong assertion "The Gospels are Reliable" based only on the very weak embarrassment principle (yes, we've heard it so often there is a name for it).

I would suggest you read the sticky post at the top of the forum to save us all some time.

Which arguments were you not impressed by? Do you realize that they aren't arguments so much as well established fact accepted by "atheists" and theistic scholars alike?

Outside of Church, they ARE all judged the same way.

If the amount of evidence for the US was the same as the evidence for the Gospel events, then they would be quite justified in questioning the existance of America.

Read the sticky.