Self-Mutation

For example, when we read the New Testament, atheists ask "where's the evidence OUTSIDE the New Testament?" This is begging the question.

Atheists first must explain why we CAN'T trust the New Testament writings. They are writings and mentionings, are they not?

When one reads the gospels and asks, "why did NO ONE write about this Jesus?" The answer is they did write about him and you're reading it right now with your very eyes!

Why do atheists INSIST on evidence OUTSIDE the Gospels? :huh:

show_no_mercy

Do you assume that everything that's written is written by dilligent, unbiased CNN-like news reporters?

Tom Sawyer

Why do ajedists insist for evidence outside of the original trilogy?

For example, when we watch The Empire Strikes Back, ajedists ask "where's the evidence OUTSIDE The Empire Strikes Back?" This is begging the question.

Ajedists first must explain why we CAN'T trust The Empire Strikes Back? It is a documentary of a civil war that happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, is it not?

When one watches the original trilogy and asks, "why did NO ONE document Skywaker's battle against Vader?" The answer is they did document it and you're watching it right now with your very eyes!

Why do ajedists INSIST on evidence OUTSIDE the original trilogy?

Vinnie

The term New Testament is irrelevant to Christian origins research. You need to work with all the relevant literature, Christian or non Christian, from the relevant time period. In its formative years Christianity was a blip on the radar so in all likely hood, we will only obtain information about it through Christian writers. To ask for "extra-Biblical evidence" is quite silly since when doing historical Jesus research the texts should be treated historically, not with a canonical dimension. Each text is to be looked at individually and in its relation to others. The term biblical or non-biblical shouldn't matter to an unbiased researcher.

Vinnie

Godless Raven

The reason I personally wouldn't take the NT as some sort of historical document is because it claims a lot of things that don't happen in nature, happened. People living to be 400+ years old, "miracles", ressurections.

It all sounds like hogwash because...well things like that just don't happen. Hundreds of years of documented history shows these things just aren't part of our world. So if those claims in the NT are hogwash (and there's really no reason to believe they aren't) then why would I take the rest of the documents to be historical? Even if parts of it are historical, they have lost all integrity at that point - due to the fairy tale nature of those claims.

Dutch_labrat

I don't trust anything found in the bible. Give me one good reason why I should.

driver8

S-M, Do YOU believe the Book of Mormon?

If not, do you base that judgement on external factors, or solely on the content of the document?

Wooster

Question should rather be "When you hear the story about how the book of mormon came to be, how can you believe it is anything but nonsense?"

ElectEngr

Maybe if we changed the OP around to involve the FSM and "The Holy Betty Crocker Cook Book". then it might make some sense...

Later,
ElectEngr

Zaphod

Except, of course, that the 'intra-Biblical evidence' says that many thousands of followers swarmed Jesus as he performed one astounding miracle after another. Since not a single historian of the time wrote about that, nor is there a single scrap of physical evidence from anywhere near the appropriate time frame, and the NT is a document chock-a-block full of insertions, deletions and historical inaccuracies, I guess we are left with the conclusion that even the 'intra-Biblical evidence' is untrustworthy - even about the most transformative event in Christendom - the "New Covenant" delivered at the Sermon on the Mount.