xeren

Okay, whenever I get into a discussion about Christianity with my roommate, the discussion ALWAYS ends up with him asking me, "What about the evidence in the Bible?"

He always talks about how it is one of the most reliable historical documents around, and so on, and we always get into long-winded discussions where neither of us end up knowing what we're talking about any more, and we don't get anywhere.

Is there anything I can say to his claim that the bible is evidence of the resurrection, something that can be summed up in several sentences that at the very least shows that the Bible is not good evidence for a resurrection.

What I'm basically asking for is a sound bite. Obviously there's no quick way to prove that the Bible is full of crap in 45 seconds, I'm just looking for something that will defend my position that I'm not stupid for thinking the bible isn't compelling evidence, without having to go back into another long-winded, pointless discussion.

-xeren

Old Man

When I was young, I was quite impressed by a book that said Jesus and his disciples were named after the gods of fertility cults, "John M. Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" springs to mind. Trouble is, books like that are patent drivel before historical and linguistic scholars - just propaganda of the worst sort - and everyone knows it. There are one thousand things you can say against the resurrection, but ultimately, they all rest on unproveable hypotheses.

Sorry I can't help you!

Gregg

There are a thousand things you can say against Herakles being the son of Zeus and Hera, but ultimately, they all rest on unproveable hyotheses. Hail, mighty Herakles!

BTW, you do know that the Resurrection is an unproveable hypthesis too, don't you?

Gregg

Gregg

I doubt there's anything you can say that will shut him up. But first, you might ask him why, if the Bible is evidence for the Resurrection, then why aren't the scriptures of other religions evidence for those beliefs? Then you might ask why, if it's so important in God's grand scheme of things for us to believe in the Resurrection, then why are all the accounts different?

But really, there's no way you're going to convince him or shut him up with a sound bite. In fact, if he as any apologetical skills at all, he'll have answers to the above questions, and you'll then have to address his answers, which will probably be something like, "Well, Jesus fulfilled all these Biblical prophecies, which proves the Bible's reliability' and "Well, no four eyewitness accounts of a traffic accident are the same either!" These arguments are easily demolished, of course, but he'll have more answers to your answers, and voila, you're having another long-winded argument.

Gregg

Toto

Extraordinary claims require extaordinary evidence.

The physical resurrection of Jesus is a physical impossibility unless you believe in miracles, so you would require extraordinary evidence to believe that it is true. The Gospels are not extraordinary evidence. They are old manuscripts that were written at least 40 years after the claimed resurrection (if not more), and we do not even have the original documents, nor do we know that the Gospels were written as documentary history or as mere allegory, pointing to a "higher truth". So they are very weak evidence of anything at all - hearsay on hearsay on hearsay.

The Infidels library has a number of "counter apologetics" which discuss and rebut the common Christian arguments. They are typically much longer than sound bites, but you might want to read them over. In particular, The Reliability of the Bible by James Still discusses arguments made by Josh McDowell, part of The Jury is In

Vorkosigan

Sorry I can't help you! [/QUOTE]

In this mini-rant, that was the only correct thing you said.

Vorkosigan

That's the problem. They have cute sound bites. The only response is to have the answers right at your fingertips and swamp them with facts. What's the earliest papyrus with a complete Bible? Did you know that there are multiple textual traditions, and that the variants are sometimes crucial? Be sure to rely on conservative scholars like Meier and Brown, for example. Hit'em with the fact that the NT writings have been extensively edited, and that some are known forgeries -- like the fake letters of Paul. Refer them to Bart Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of the Scripture.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Forgeries and fake Pauline letters? That appears to be close to absuing the practice of ancient authors to the point of outright deception in my book!

Vinnie

xeren

Vork,

Tell me more about the fake letters of Paul. Which books in the NT are you referring to, and how are they known to be fake? This could help me a lot.

-xeren

Vinnie

LOL That will not work with a conservative. When a Bible letter explicitly claims to be coming from Paul they are not going to believe you when you argue Paul didn't actually author it LOL :-D

If you are looking for a sound bite that will not work. It will only convince your friend that he is more correct and you are seriously mislead.

Of course the fact remains that Paul did not author all the NT epistles attributed to him. Calling them false attributions is technically accurate but we have to watch our language and how we frame this otherwise we will very easily decieve someone not hip to ancient standards or practices. Many sober and more conservative mainline Christian scholars like Raymond Brown accept such things as accurate desciptions of alleged Pauline epistles. I think even evangelicals can allow for this. The Chicago statement says things like "since nonchronological narration and inexact citation were the norms blah blah blah". Why couldn't it say, since an apostle writing in his teacher's name (in this case one of Paul's followers) was acceptable we can afirm without error blabh blah blah.

At any rate, this is not the way to go about anything. But if you are actually interested in this try searching for pseudepigraphy online.

The pastorals are largely considered duetero-Pauline.

Vinnie