bfniii

interesting, what "evidence" would that be?

the Bible does record miraculous events. but so does CNN. does that make it untrue?

by the same token, recording an event that is fantastical and unlikely to be duplicated or repeated doesn't discredit the Bible or CNN or whatever example you want to use.

i see that instead of addressing the five points individually and specifically, you fall back to disbelief of miracles.

Mageth

For the Flood, the overwhelming evidence that the entire world was not flooded some 4000 years ago (and the lack of evidence outside the Bible that it was), the lack of evidence that there was any "bottleneck" in the population of species some 4000 years ago, the evidence that the ark itself is not feasible, the evidence that indicates that the rainfall rates required to cover all the mountains on the earth in 40 days is not possible, the fact that there's simply not enough water to cover the entire earth, the fact that we have recorded histories and archaeological evidence for entire civilizations that apparently did not notice this worldwide event (though the religions of many record similar myths), etc etc etc. The Flood account in Genesis is, I'm afraid, a myth.

What the heck does CNN have to do with anything? Last I checked, CNN wasn't trying to "sell" a religion. CNN is not a religious document that you are claiming is "credible", nor is it comparable to one. Further, where did I say that I thought the Bible was "untrue" because it records miraculous events? Those recorded events themselves are incredible, and their inclusion (without external corroboration) calls the historicity and credibility of the Bible into question, but I do not claim that that makes the Bible, as a whole, "untrue".

So then, do you grant equal credibility to, say, the Book of Mormon? If not, why not?

And there's a significant difference between simply reporting an event that is "fantastical and unlikely to be duplicated or repeated" and claiming such an event as a basis for a belief system.

I would believe in a "miracle" if credible evidence for one was presented. Sorry; the Bible fails on that point. "The Bible says Jesus was resurrected, and the Bible got some other things right" is, well, a very bad argument, and not evidence at all. And the five things you listed fail to get the Bible over that hump.

As for those five things:

manuscript evidence
manuscript reliability

So what if we can verify that the texts of the NT we have today are essentially accurate reproductions of what was available in the second century? That does nothing to validate the incredible claims made in the NT. All that indicates is that we have accurate versions of incredible stories.

textual comparison to other works of antiquity

So what? Again, that does nothing to validate the incredible claims made in the NT.

internal evidence

Using the Bible to support the claim that the Bible is credible? Incredible.

external evidence

What external evidence for the incredible claims made in the NT, or the OT for that matter?

Amaleq13

It is incorrect to suggest that only "critics of Christianity" consider the TF to result from Christian tampering. In actual fact, the vast majority of scholars, both Christian and non, recognize this rather painfully obvious fact. The only dispute is whether there was ever anything there in the first place and speculation about the contents.

One can ask just about any question one wishes but some sort of evidence is required to establish it as anything besides wishful thinking.

Perhaps, but the same surely cannot be said about the sort of disturbance that would be created by numerous dead "saints" rising from their graves and entering Jerusalem. It is difficult enough to imagine why no one, including those who made it their business to collect such stories (e.g. Pliny the Elder), would find such an event remarkable enough to be recorded in writing but the author of Matthew's Gospel doesn't even get support from the other Gospel stories.

Given that these "saints" had been in their graves for some time, personal experience, physics, and modern medicine all suggest that there is insufficient reason, from a purely rational viewpoint, to believe this isolated claim.

Unsubstantiated claims can be doubted for no other reason than that they contradict personal experience or established principles of the physical structure of the universe. While it is theoretically possible for unique events to occur in violation of those facors, more than the claim is required to establish sufficient reason to believe such an event has actually taken place. That the claim was made within the context of a culture that believed all sorts of magical notions (see Richard Carrier's excellent article for examples) hardly suggests that we take them at their word.

The evidence suggests that their early opponents actually knew very little about the specific beliefs of Christians but their expressed opinions (e.g. "gullible", "superstitious") hardly suggests that their knowledge included known or accepted facts.

Nonsense. The evidence suggests that their earliest critics knew very little about them and generally dismissed them as ignorant nuisances. They had no motivation whatsoever to spend the time or energy required to formulate a written critique.

The information we have does not suggest these documents are reliable records of history. There may very well be historically accurate statements within them but it is difficult, if not impossible, to establish which ones qualify. The easiest to identify are, unfortunately for your claims, ultimately irrelevant (e.g. Pilate truly was in charge of Jerusalem).

The information we have indicates that all four Gospels have undergone substantial editing prior to reaching their current form.

The information we have indicates that many claims made within those texts are contrary to personal experience and require external corroboration to be believed.

bfniii

would you say this could be used as a case supporting why non-biblical authors didn't record certain biblical events?

even though it's quite possible that eyewitnesses to such events were still alive?

the events admitted into canon were already de facto canon. the councils gathered for that purpose were there to weed out the controversial books that shouldn't be admitted due to lack of doctrinal material or errors.

i wouldn't disagree if it weren't for the fact that much of the NT was written either during or mere years after the lifetimes of eyewitnesses to the events.

i ask why you make such a statement. we have more documentation supporting biblical events and accounts than any other document from antiquity. if we reject the Bible, we must reject all other historical documents for centuries afterward. my point is, documents that are far less supported than the Bible are taken to be literal truth. that seems hypocritical. in addition, there are extra-biblical authors who make mention of people or places mentioned in the Bible further lending credence to the historicity of the Bible. furthermore, we see no outright denial of events, people or places mentioned in the Bible.

no more so than any other document from antiquity.

bfniii

no matter how small or trivial christianity was, the christians were travelling around propagating these stories such as peter at the pentecost (apparently to several thousand people) and paul in greece. it would not have been difficult at all to falsify their accounts if the events were untrue. "hey you were there at time, what really happened?"

how so?

what "evidence" would that be?

the rumor theory doesn't seem likely. the NT was recorded during or shortly thereafter the lifetimes of alleged witnesses.

i never said that it was. i said that in conjunction with another historically accurate and reliable document there is no reason to think otherwise.

the Bible makes no such claims.

curious. events that have happened since the sacking of jerusalem don't correspond to prophecies in revelation. i haven't heard any christians making this claim. could you point them out to me?

what historical evidence would you be referring to?

Mageth

There's no indication that contemporary Roman (or Jewish) historians witnessed the alleged events, or even heard of the alleged events from reliable sources. Heck, Jesus' crucifixion isn't even noted by the Romans to my knowledge, as crucifixions were definitely not uncommon and the crucifixion of this particular person was apparently carried out (if it happened at all) without any incident that would make it remarkable to the Romans. That absense is remarkable in itself, as the Romans were notorious for recording significant occurrences.

The fact that a small (Jewish) sect "believers" in a particular (mythical or historical) messianic "Prophet" may have been spreading tales of events surrounding his life and death apparently simply was not unique or notable enough to record.

So use the insignificance of the early Christians to Judaism and the Romans as a reason why external sources didn't record the alleged Biblical events if you wish, but if you do you need to abandon your assertions that "if the events weren't true, why isn't there a counter movement devoted to the truth?" and the like.

There's little or no indication that anyone was particularly concerned with "disproving" the claims of Christianity in the First Century. Those that didn't like the Christian sect found other, more direct, ways to deal with them.

How could there be eyewitnesses to verify that an event didn't happen, esp. so long after the time the alleged events occurred? How can there be an eyewitness to a non-event? What is someone supposed to come forward and say, "I was there at the time, and I did not see Jesus walking around good as new after he was crucified?" The sketchy Biblical post-resurrection accounts indicate that he appeared to believers, and do not indicate that he ever appeared to the general population, remember. So all a Christian would have to say is "Of course not; he only appeared to a select group of people, those that believed in him."

Besides, by the time the Gospels were written and circulated (70 CE and later), the Christians were, for the most part, outside of Jerusalem (which had been destroyed, and a large number of its inhabitants killed, by the Romans) and Israel.

The acceptance of the Gospels as "canon" was a long and drawn-out process, one fraught with many disputes.

And don't forget those that didn't conform to the "orthodox" version of Christianity that won the day. Constantine happened upon one particular sect of Christianity. From that chance event, Christianity received its "orthodox" version.

The earliest books in the NT were the authentic writings of Paul, which include few if any details on the events later recorded in the Gospels, all written after Paul's death. The Gospels and other "canonical" books were written from 70 CE until, perhaps, 110 CE or so, some even later.

Umm, that seems to be a key question in the thread. You assert this, but I do not agree with your assertion at all. What extrabiblical documentation do you have for the crucifixion and resurrection accounts, for example? For Jesus' other alleged miracles? How about for Noah's flood and the Ark? For a talking snake? The Exodus? The conquest of Canaan? The list goes on and on...

Umm, no, that does not follow.

Name me one other "miracle" comparable to the miracles portrayed in the Bible from one other document of antiquity that is accepted as a "literal truth" by historians. :huh:

So some people and places mentioned in the Bible probably existed, and some are even mentioned in other documents. So what? That does nothing to lend credibility to the fantastical, incredible claims in the Bible as historical events.

Why would we expect to? Again, this does not lend credibility to the fantastical, incredible claims in the Bible as historical events.

True; if one wishes to believe fantastical, incredible stories from other documents of antiquity, one had better get out one's "faith". For, otherwise, there's no support for believing them.

bfniii

i guess this comment is debatable because the people who post on that thread supporting the veracity of the TF would disagree with you.

this is exactly what i think when i read criticisms of the resurrection story.

it seems that i recall there is very little that exists of the writings of pliny the elder. maybe his work isn't such a good example. also, why do any other gospels have to record an event for it to be true? one can't suffice?

miraculous doesn't equal false. also, i wouldn't expect anyone to become a christian just because the Bible makes miraculous claims. there are many other reasons.

the jews that crucified jesus would disagree with you. also, many christians were put to death following the resurrection so obviously there were others who would disagree with you as well.

first, you support the reliability of the Bible by providing an example of it's corroboration with extra-biblical writings. then you claim that any such likages are irrelevant. in what way are they irrelevant? also, this "information we have", how does it not suggest that the Bible is reliable? that statement seems a little vague.

what "information" would that be?

Vorkosigan

Amaleq's position is entirely correct, BF. The TF is almost universally seen as at least edited by a Christian hand. A minority of scholars see it as an entire interpolation. As historical evidence it isn't worth much because nobody knows what was there prior to the editing. There is another thread about the TF that is ongoing. Did you read through it?

It seems that if the saints had really walked around as Matthew claimed, why would every other document from antiquity, including the couple dozen gospels plus many epistles, ignore that?

Jesus was crucified by Romans -- as the gospels clearly say -- and there is no evidence that even a single Christian was put to death "following the resurrection."

Like, for example, the existence of widespread forging and faking in Christian antiquity. The gospels are a good example. Not only have they been edited extensively (at least 3 authors have been identified for John, and the chapter order is a mess) but the names on them were added later. Similarly, every epistle in the NT except for the half-dozen authentic ones of Paul are thought to have been written in someone else's name. The gospels are frequently contradicted by the historical record -- for example, Josephus flatly contradicts Mark's claims about John's baptism. The Sanhedrin Trial contains major errors in known Sanhedrin practices. And so on.

Vorkosigan

budgie

For example, when Heinrich Schliemann uncovered Troy, did that automatically validate the Iliad and the Odyssey? Why don't we worship the Greek pantheon today because of this information? Short answer: myths are based on reality. Problem: where do we draw the line between words in a myth that are verifiable and those that are not? Evidence of Absence.

-jim

Amaleq13

I'm not sure what thread you are talking about but no one can rationally disagree with the factual nature of my statement: the vast majority of scholars recognize that the TF, as it reads currently, cannot have been written by Josephus and is the result of Christian tampering.

Your recollection is mistaken. See this link.

That such a fabulous story is not repeated by any of the other Gospel authors is problematic for anyone claiming it to be historically true. This is especially the case for Luke's author who claims to have considered "many" reports by others in an effort to put forth what is "most surely believed" among Christians.

Certainly not when the single claim is of such an astounding nature.

True but it also doesn't equal "can be accepted as true without substantiation". Even the Catholic Church agrees with that.

I think you need to reread your Bible. Jesus was crucified by Romans.

How does this contradict my claim? According to Pliny the Younger's letters, the factual basis of Christian beliefs was not relevant. They either denied being Christians and proved it (by worshipping the Emperor, IIRC) or they were killed. Christians weren't killed because of what they believed. They were killed because their beliefs were seen as treason against the Emperor.

Support for a single detail cannot be generalized to the entire text. That there exists external confirmation that Pilate ruled Jerusalem only confirms that particular claim made in the Bible. This is ultimately irrelevant because we aren't arguing about whether Pilate ruled Jersualem.

It as vague as your assertion to the contrary. When specific biblical claims are made, a more specific consideration of the relevant evidence can be made.

Enough to fill many, many books. A good start would include those mentioned in the sticky at the top of this forum.