the right religion

[1robin]

I appreciate your research and have reviewed it as thoroughly as one can on the internet so here is my response. I'm breaking it up into sections because of the text limits in this forum.

I appreciate your appreciation.

Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels for a reason. Any critical analysis of these texts shows that the authors of Mark and Luke were not only aware of Matthew but copied much from it.

They are called synoptic because they are similar in style and purpose. That does not mean copied. I have seen many scholars completely dismantle the copied claim. If you are clinging to it in order to dismiss the Gospels that is an argument from silence. There is no compelling reason to believe they are copies. However even if some of their content was copied that still leaves much information that is unique to each and so are independant witnesses. Since different writers covering the same events would have little chance of not mentioning the same things at least in part then what we have is what we would expect.

That means there are only two biblical sources for Jesus, Matthew and John. While these two sources tell many of the same stories, they differ in many crucial details making it questionable if either is reliable.

These supposed contradictions have been exhaustively explained a thousand times over by scholars. In fact what has caused me to have the most faith in the bible is asking for contradictions and then researching them. I have yet to see one that does not have a simple harmonious answer. However most critics just won't accept any answer no matter how fitting. I have even had critics admit that the contradictions weren't contradictory after all only to see them posting the same ones months later. You are welcome to throw one or two of your best at me if you wish.

One also needs to consider that the gospel writers had a bias towards presenting a certain image of Jesus. These testimonies would have to be beyond question in their authenticity for a skeptic to accept them but I'm afraid they are not.

There is no such thing as an ancient document that can't be questioned. The issue is why is Ceasur, Xerxes, Plato etc taught as fact when there is many many times over as much info for Christ and it still isn't enough. Your supposed bias is irrational. They had nothing to gain. In fact they were guaranteed to suffer for their beliefs. Why would thousands of early believers risk their reputations, family ties, and their lives on something that they knew was a lie. They never gained any wealth nor contemporary fame from them. Paul was going the opposite direction as hard as he could and nothing explains his change of heart but his experience with Christ. Peter went from coward to die hard after the upper room experience. Their is no motivation suffecient to explain what any of them did besides what they claimed.

 

[1robin]

1. Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD) - Mentions Christians and Christ but no miracles
2. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (c. 69 – c. 122) - Mentions Christians (Jews) and their leader "Cherstus", again no miracles
3. Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), See detailed discussion below
4. Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) - Christian, obviously influenced by earlier works. Crucifixion eclipse attributed to Thallus but no record that Thallus ever mentioned it.
5. Pliny the Younger (61 AD – ca. 112 AD) - Mentions Christians but no Christ or miracles
6. Emperor Trajan (53 AD – ca. 117 AD) - Again, mentions Christians but no Christ or miracles
7. Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD) - Again, mentions Christians but no Christ or miracles
8. Talmud (60 AD – ca. 200 AD) - Mentions Jesus and sorcery (miracles?) but says he was hanged. No other details.
9. Lucian (120 AD – ca. 180 AD) - Once again, mentions Christians but no Christ or miracles
10. Mara Bar-Serapion (73 AD ~ ca. 300 AD) - Yet again, mentions Christians and Christ but no miracles
11. The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius (140 AD – ca. 180 AD) - Christian, obviously influenced by earlier works
12. The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus (unknown) - Christian, obviously influenced by earlier works
13. The Gospel of Thomas (unknown) - Christian, obviously influenced by earlier works
14. The Treatise On Resurrection (unknown) - Christian, obviously influenced by earlier works
15.Acts of Pontius Pilate (unknown) - Most modern scholars view the Acts of Pilate as not authentic and as a Christian composition designed to rebuff pagan sources
16. Phlegon (2nd century AD) - No direct source. Quoted by Julius Africanus and Eusebius of Caesarea, both Christians
17.Clement, elder of Rome - Pope Clement I, need I say more?
18. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch - A Saint, really?
19. Ignatius - Is this a mistake or are you thinking of another Ignatius?
20. Quadratus - Another Christian, have you run out of independent sources?
21. (Pseudo-)Barnabas - An Apostolic Father, you're really digging here
22. Justin Martyr (AD 100–165) - Another Saint, now I know you've reached the bottom of the barrel


22 authors. Lots of references to Christians but nobody disputes that they exist. Some independent reference to Jesus but mostly in relation to Christians which isn't unusual. Only one non-Christian reference to a miracle by Josephus so let's look at that.

I did not list these as proof of the supernatural. I listed them as historical corroberation. There is no reason to expect thousands of Christians arising that early unless something supernatural had transpired, especially considering the hardship and division it caused. Christianity is unique among all religions in that to be one requires a supernatural experience with God. Every sincere Christian is a testimony to the supernatural (thats many billions). The fact that all these people record fairly large numbers of Christians early on suggests that something profound was behind it. To suggest that Christian apologists can't be used as testimony is silly. If I said no evolutionist can be used to prove evolution they would put me away. If you can't show how their being Christian has caused an incorrect biased view then they are just as valid as any other witness. It is a strange dicotomy to suggest that people who believe something can't be used to defend it and only people who dismiss it are reliable. If you went on trial would you let the lawyers only use your enemies for character witnesses? However even critics sometimes admit the truth:

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky, one of Great Britain's most noted historians and a dedicated opponent of organized Christianity, writes
Jesus: God or Just a Good Man? :: Cru

Interpolation, in case you didn't know, means it was added in subsequent copies and was not in the original manuscript. Considering that it was Christians who did most of the subsequent copying, this is not very surprising.

That only concerns later details even if true. The site said that it originally contained an authentic reference to the execution. Throw the rest away if you wish but he did write what counted most.

I also would point out that not one of these was actually alive when the events in question took place. We know there were people around at that time who could write. Why isn't there even a single reference to someone that lived during these events?

Some of the works I did not site and one or two I did are just that. They are later writings that record excerpts from earlier writings. If we had 6 you would want twelve etc........ Writing was an expensive, fragile, and rare practice in those days. The wealth of what we do have exceeds any other work of antiquity (maybe even all of them combined) and is almost miraculous however if it were a digital copy with photos a unreasonably critical mind would find loopholes in that as well. The standard for Hebrew law was two witnesses to establish fact. We have 30-40 bible writers who witnessed miracles. About six who witnessed Christ and his miracles. Plus several dozen extra biblical historical corroberations and it still isn't enough. What scale are you using that you think you should have more and why?

 

[1robin]

Other than being the opinions of a bunch of really smart people, is there anything here directly supporting biblical truth? Other people just as smart as them have also looked at the evidence and reached exactly the opposite conclusion. Does this add anything other than an appeal to authority?

Being that appeal to authority goes on everday in most courtrooms around the world, as well as being a most valuable tool in academia I find it perfectly applicable. When the worlds greatest scholars explain how biblical evidence is perfectly acceptable even by todays standards, and their testimony is dismissed with the wave of the fallacy wand it just looks desperate. There is no valid reason why their or the hundreds of other experts opinions are not extremely meaningful. It is exactly what is appealed to in every other case.


You shouldn't have, but since you did...

1. 25,000 historical corroboration of biblical claims. - Not surprising since they were closer to those events but it doesn't prove Jesus' divinity

It wasn't meant to. I listed this because it establishes reliabilty of the book. Once again this is done everyday in every courtroom.

2. 2500 prophecies with 350 plus concerning one man. All of which that were to have been fulfilled have been in detail. The rest are future events. - Do you realize how easy it is to write fulfilled prophecy in fiction?

It is impossible to make the types of predictions the bible did and have a 100% success rate without divine explenations.

3. Philosophic consistency. - Not exactly unique to the Bible

Most other religions have philisophical contradictions in them. However even if some of them are consistent this is still a valid way to establish reliability.

4. Explanatory power. - Explaining what?

It is the only suffecient explanation for the most profound concepts in human history. Origin, destination, purpose, and meaning. Nothing else can provide it, especially atheism.

5. Scientific claims unknown at the time they were written. - Such as pi = 3?

No, hydrological cycles, the moon reflecting not producing light, the importance of the blood for life (even relatively modern doctors didn't know this), The Earth is not supported by physical structures (pagans, etc.. believed it was), and the universe time and matter had a beginning. Many of the greatest scientists have been Christians. Here is a site that address the pi = 3 canard:

The "Jewish" or "Bible" Value of "pi"Do the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim (sections of Jewish scripture, comprising parts of the Christian "Old Testament") really say that the value of pi is three? Not actually but, due to the social pressures to look down on all things Judeo-Christian and the perverse joy certain people get out of tormenting others, I keep receiving queries on this issue. Before we do the calculations to put this old chestnut to rest, let's lay a little groundwork.
"The Bible Says pi = 3"
Bolding mine

6. The testimony of billions of people who claim to have experienced a spiritual salvation event. Plus the testimony of people who have completely transformed lives such as George Foreman, Johnny Cash, the apostle Paul etc... that have written proof of the radical change. - None of which can be reproduced or independantly corroborated.

You are demanding proof without suffecient justification. You don't do this with much of your everyday beliefs why this one? Can you prove everything wasn't created five minutes ago with the appearance of age? The bible requires faith which rules out proof. The testimony of billions and the example of their lives is about as close to proof as is possible without God showing up and granting wishes. We and you accept far more based on far less. Why the double standards?

All I can say is that nothing you have presented is particularly convincing unless you already believe in Jesus.

Since all the billions of Christians started out as unbelievers I find this hollow and completely inaccurate.

 

[1robin]

I still vote for Satanism.



That last part I bolded, is so true I don't think Christians often realize how unconvincing they are when they use these kinds of arguments.

Whether we are or are not convincing has more to do with the reader than the information. See my responses above.

 

[camanintx]

One in particular, which has drawn a great deal of interest, was a fragment of a manuscript which appears to be the oldest writing of the New Testament ever discovered. The Pontifical Biblical Institute, which is a part of the Roman Catholic Church, announced that the Reverend Jose Ocallaghan discovered fragments of Mark's Gospel dating from the year 50 A.D. The writings are older by at least 75 years than any other portion of the New Testament in our possession.

Looks like we have to wait until next year for the final report on this one.

Earliest manuscript of Gospel of Mark reportedly found

Still, would really like to see something contemporary to Jesus. The reason that Ceasar, Xerxes, Plato and other ancient people are taught as fact is because we have contemporary accounts of their existence, not just stories written down nearly a century after the fact.

These supposed contradictions have been exhaustively explained a thousand times over by scholars. In fact what has caused me to have the most faith in the bible is asking for contradictions and then researching them. I have yet to see one that does not have a simple harmonious answer.

Then how about explaining who told the disciples that Jesus' body was missing? Matthew 28:7 says an angel told the women to do this while Mark 16:8 says they told no one.

I did not list these as proof of the supernatural. I listed them as historical corroboration. There is no reason to expect thousands of Christians arising that early unless something supernatural had transpired, especially considering the hardship and division it caused.

Within 20 years, Mohamed had enough followers to conquer Mecca. Within another two years, most of the Arabian peninsula had converted.

Thirty years after Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, his followers had colonized much of the Utah Territory despite much persecution. Today, less than 200 years later they have 14 million followers.

I don't think you want to use the growth of a religion as a measure of it's veracity unless you plan to convert soon.

It is impossible to make the types of predictions the bible did and have a 100% success rate without divine explenations.

Unless you make up stories about the fulfillment in order to align with the prediction. Micah 5:2 said the prophet would be born in Bethlehem, but since Jesus was from Nazareth writers invented a story about a census forcing everyone to return to the land of their fathers. Since we have no record of Caesar Augustus issuing such a decree while Quirinius was governing Syria, nor that anyone would have been required to return to the land of their fathers, such fulfilled prophecy is highly suspect.

No, hydrological cycles, the moon reflecting not producing light, the importance of the blood for life (even relatively modern doctors didn't know this), The Earth is not supported by physical structures (pagans, etc.. believed it was), and the universe time and matter had a beginning.

These are derived from incredibly vague passages which can be taken to mean anything and so are worthless as scientific knowledge. When the Bible does get specific, such as Genesis 1:11 where it has seeded plants existing before animals, it gets things obviously wrong.

You are demanding proof without suffecient justification.

And you are demanding belief without sufficient proof.

 

[Nakosis]

Looks like we have to wait until next year for the final report on this one.

Earliest manuscript of Gospel of Mark reportedly found

Still, would really like to see something contemporary to Jesus. The reason that Ceasar, Xerxes, Plato and other ancient people are taught as fact is because we have contemporary accounts of their existence, not just stories written down nearly a century after the fact.

I think that is a good point. Not knowing exactly when Mark was first written. 10 years afterwards, even as little as 5 years latter. People's memories aren't that great regardless of how well intended to be honest in recording history.

I think the contemporary view is that Mark was written after the destruction of the second temple so some 40 years later... I know 40 years after any event in my life my memory ain't exactly reliable.

 

[Nakosis]

You are demanding proof without suffecient justification. You don't do this with much of your everyday beliefs why this one? Can you prove everything wasn't created five minutes ago with the appearance of age? The bible requires faith which rules out proof. The testimony of billions and the example of their lives is about as close to proof as is possible without God showing up and granting wishes. We and you accept far more based on far less. Why the double standards?

I think the question is whether it is reasonable to doubt the claims. All a "non-believer" (of anything) needs to do is justify whether their doubt is reasonable.

If it is reasonable then they can't be blamed for their doubt. Kind of up to you then to show them were their doubt is not justified. And, I know you are doing a good job providing a lot of material to review.

Still I think it takes time to review the information available and decide whether one's doubt is still justified.

 

[1robin]

Looks like we have to wait until next year for the final report on this one.

Earliest manuscript of Gospel of Mark reportedly found

OK, however even the gospels are elmost universaly believed to be within the lifetime of the witnesses and many have good reason for pushing their dates back to 50-70AD. It is not a suprise we don't have more it is a miracle we do not have less written documentation of such a high reliability.

Still, would really like to see something contemporary to Jesus. The reason that Ceasar, Xerxes, Plato and other ancient people are taught as fact is because we have contemporary accounts of their existence, not just stories written down nearly a century after the fact.

What? Lets take a look.
Author, Date Written, Earliest Copy, Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 365 95%

New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. 50-100 A.D. <100 years 5600 99.5%
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability|Accuracy of the New Testament | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
As you can see there are no contemporary accounts outside the bible. The closeast competitor I have found is Thucydides - History of the Peloponesian war but it only accurate in transmission and detail but still has no copies even close to the events.

Then how about explaining who told the disciples that Jesus' body was missing? Matthew 28:7 says an angel told the women to do this while Mark 16:8 says they told no one.

Remind me about these supposed contradictions when things settle down a bit. I have too much going on right now, but please remind me I do not want to let that go without an answer.

Within 20 years, Mohamed had enough followers to conquer Mecca. Within another two years, most of the Arabian peninsula had converted.

This is apples and oranges. Muhammad led a militant movement that compelled loyalty by fear among other things. The first few dozen years of Islam are violent in the extreme. His goal was to unite everyone by persuassion or by force if necessary. Early Christianity was spread by the weight of testimony alone. Islam does not require a supernatural experience as the entrance exam. The only thing necessary is a superficial consent to an intellectual proposition. In the face of likely death not a hard choice. The Jews that converted to Christ risked everything. Muhammad fought 68 battles (admittedly some were defensive) to gain followers. Christ fought none and even gave his life willingly to win them. The two examples cannot be further apart.

Thirty years after Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, his followers had colonized much of the Utah Territory despite much persecution. Today, less than 200 years later they have 14 million followers.

When comparing populations seperated by two thousand years they are not comparable. Also since it is based on Christianity then it is in part on my side.

I don't think you want to use the growth of a religion as a measure of it's veracity unless you plan to convert soon.

You missed the significance. 1. If Jesus never rose or did supernatural things why would people who knew that face death with no potential reward. 2. A dying Messiah if not proven divine is a pour inspiration indeed for a movement. 3. Since Christianity requires a supernatural experience (proof) it can't be compared to others (which only require consent). 4. This movement grew peacefully in spite of persecution (not because of) as in the case of other religions. 5. You have in effect billions of independant eyewitness testimonies of a miracle in Christianity. No other religion has this kind of requirement. (they do claim supernatural events but the vast majority do not claim to experience them).

Unless you make up stories about the fulfillment in order to align with the prediction. Micah 5:2 said the prophet would be born in Bethlehem, but since Jesus was from Nazareth writers invented a story about a census forcing everyone to return to the land of their fathers. Since we have no record of Caesar Augustus issuing such a decree while Quirinius was governing Syria, nor that anyone would have been required to return to the land of their fathers, such fulfilled prophecy is highly suspect.

There is all kinds of evidence for this. I just the other day saw an ancient copy of an order for a census from Rome concerning another nation or tribe in the area from the same period. Your selectivity has chosen a prophecy that could be (but wasn't contrived) however there are a vast number that could not be invented or self fulfilled. How did he make them cast lots, or ridicule him with the very words predicted. I imagine I will get another dismissal based on nothing morebiased scholarship.

These are derived from incredibly vague passages which can be taken to mean anything and so are worthless as scientific knowledge. When the Bible does get specific, such as Genesis 1:11 where it has seeded plants existing before animals, it gets things obviously wrong.

I notice how you always make a claim and then go get the worst example out of 2,500 possabilities in order to prove it. For every one that is vague there is at least one that is so specific as to reneder chance illogical.

And you are demanding belief without sufficient proof.

I am not God. God said he gave suffecient proof. Many of the worlds greatest legal, philisophical, and scientific minds agree. This evidence includes the most respected and scrutinised book in human history. The testimonies of spiritual experiences with a risen Christ claimed by billions. God asks for faith (a reasoned choice) based on countless pieces of evidence. However if you are waiting for proof even though in countless areas of everyone's lives we accept things on faith, you may never be satasfied. When one third of the Earth believes something. It may be said to be false but it isn't reasonably said to be lacking suffecient grounds for faith. You can say you do not believe but you can't say you don't because there is not enough evidence. That was by a very famous lawyer too, which I am too lazy to look up.

 

[camanintx]

As you can see there are no contemporary accounts outside the bible. The closeast competitor I have found is Thucydides - History of the Peloponesian war but it only accurate in transmission and detail but still has no copies even close to the events.

I don't think you understand what contemporary means. The History of the Peloponnesian War was written by a general who actually participated in it. It has nothing to do with the age of the surviving copies. Caesar's life was documented by several people who lived at the same time he did. We know about Xerxes from Herodotus who lived and wrote during his reign. Since we don't know who wrote the gospels or when, all we have to go on is the oldest extant copy. You would think that if someone raised the dead, healed the blind, walked on water, turned water into wine, and fed 4,000 people with just five loaves and two fish, someone who was there at the time would have noticed and written it down.

You missed the significance. 1. If Jesus never rose or did supernatural things why would people who knew that face death with no potential reward. 2. A dying Messiah if not proven divine is a pour inspiration indeed for a movement. 3. Since Christianity requires a supernatural experience (proof) it can't be compared to others (which only require consent). 4. This movement grew peacefully in spite of persecution (not because of) as in the case of other religions. 5. You have in effect billions of independant eyewitness testimonies of a miracle in Christianity. No other religion has this kind of requirement. (they do claim supernatural events but the vast majority do not claim to experience them).

The strength of one's belief is not a measure of the truth to that belief. Hindus virtually invented the practice of setting themselves on fire for their beliefs. If you think any of the points above are proof of the divinity of Jesus, you're mistaken.

There is all kinds of evidence for this. I just the other day saw an ancient copy of an order for a census from Rome concerning another nation or tribe in the area from the same period.

Maybe you can present this evidence then. There is no evidence of the Romans requiring people to return to their ancestral homes for a census and there is skepticism among scholars that such a custom existed or would have been practicable.

Your selectivity has chosen a prophecy that could be (but wasn't contrived) however there are a vast number that could not be invented or self fulfilled. How did he make them cast lots, or ridicule him with the very words predicted. I imagine I will get another dismissal based on nothing morebiased scholarship.

Who says they cast lots or ridiculed him with the very words predicted, other than those who wrote the Bible? It's easy to fulfill prophecy when you know what has been predicted and you're making up the details.

I notice how you always make a claim and then go get the worst example out of 2,500 possabilities in order to prove it. For every one that is vague there is at least one that is so specific as to reneder chance illogical.

That's because they best illustrate the imperfection of God's word. If you have a scientific claim from the Bible so specific as to render chance illogical, I suggest you present it.

 

[Muffled]

by what criteria do you determine that?


that's all right by me, however when you apply your truth as objective truth you are essentially claiming my truth....it must be nice to be on gods side as it justifies hubris

so you are not a disciple of christ...???

See my OP in my thread "Did Jesus say He is God" on Religious Debates. I won't expect you to read all 6,000 posts.

It has its benefits.

Of course I am. You are simply in error as to what that means.

 

[Muffled]

I don't know the right path, but I know the least wrong path:
Don't believe in things which aren't evidence based.

This isn't the scientific way. The Higgs particle was believed in long before the scientists found it.

The evidence is simply the confirmation of what we believe. Otherwise beliefs get dropped when proven wrong such as the idea that the world is flat.

 

[Muffled]

Exactly. So you would agree that the will is not free in the absolute sense; that our wills’ range of choice is, instead, rather limited?

I thought the bible said something about Jesus having victory over the grave.

-

Their belief is soul sleep. There is enough Biblical evidence to show that a spirit is awake if it wishes to be.

God allows people to make chioces if they are in His good graces. Otherwise He is apt to choose a judgement for the person. It is like our society. Citizens who keep the law get to choose their life but those who break the law have their freedom denied. Or as the Eagles sang in Hotel California "We are prisoners here of our own device."

 

[waitasec]

See my OP in my thread "Did Jesus say He is God" on Religious Debates. I won't expect you to read all 6,000 posts.

all of which are baseless claims...

It has its benefits.

i've got news for ya...it isn't beneficial being pompous

Of course I am. You are simply in error as to what that means.

apparently matthew 5 just doesn't compute for the pompous...go figure

 

[Astravalon]

God allows people to make chioces if they are in His good graces. Otherwise He is apt to choose a judgement for the person. It is like our society. Citizens who keep the law get to choose their life but those who break the law have their freedom denied. Or as the Eagles sang in Hotel California "We are prisoners here of our own device."

I agree that He allows people to make choices, within Divinely-set parameters of course. I also think that many judgements are built right into the wrongdoings themselves. We are punished by our sins rather than for them, in other words.

 

[1robin]

I don't think you understand what contemporary means. The History of the Peloponnesian War was written by a general who actually participated in it.

I have actually read that book. Have you? That was a long and tedious read. He was an eye witness to less than 1% of the events he records. Many of them were not even on the same land mass as he was.

It has nothing to do with the age of the surviving copies. Caesar's life was documented by several people who lived at the same time he did

The time gap between original and oldest extant is of vital importance. That is why every dissertation on the historicity of texts concerns this detail alone to a great extent. If the oldest thing we have is 600-1000 years after the event it's accuracy is virtually impossible to gauge meaningfully. Since the only remedy for this is to have a wide dispersion, and many parallel manuscript chains, as well as high numbers of extant copies which the bible does, but not one of the others have even a meaningful fraction of what is needed to establish reliability.

We know about Xerxes from Herodotus who lived and wrote during his reign.

Herodotus is such an inaccurate historian his works would be useless except for details. His record of the Persian invasion of Greece by Xerxes is virtually a laughing stock among historians. The only reason he is meaningful is there are few other sources.

Since we don't know who wrote the gospels or when, all we have to go on is the oldest extant copy. You would think that if someone raised the dead, healed the blind, walked on water, turned water into wine, and fed 4,000 people with just five loaves and two fish, someone who was there at the time would have noticed and written it down.

As I have explained above the problems that plague the secular works I mention and that render them far from reliable are not problems for the bible. Even without originals the originals can be reliably known if there are early, parallel, and very numerous copies which the bible has in spades. There is far more certainty as the authors and early dates of the gospels than you critics will admit. In fact only one book of the NT in my opinion is in serious doubt as to author, however the very worst case still unanimously suggests that all the authors were eyewitnesses pf Christ which is the only meaningfull issus.

The strength of one's belief is not a measure of the truth to that belief. Hindus virtually invented the practice of setting themselves on fire for their beliefs. If you think any of the points above are proof of the divinity of Jesus, you're mistaken

I am aware of a grand total of two Hindus who burned themselves. I am sure there are more but nowhere near the numbers of Christian Martyrs. I think you missed the point anyway. I said that these early eye witnesses would have known that Jesus was not divine and would have not given their life for what they knew was a lie if that was the case. That can't be said for Hinduism.

Maybe you can present this evidence then. There is no evidence of the Romans requiring people to return to their ancestral homes for a census and there is skepticism among scholars that such a custom existed or would have been practicable.

There are two problems, however. First, is it credible that the Romans would require people to be registered in their hometowns? A provincial census decree from Egypt dated AD 104 required absentees to return to their hometowns to be registered. The decree reads,
Gaius Vivius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt [says]: seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.
There is no reason the Romans would not have followed a similar procedure a century or so earlier in Judea.
When Was Jesus Born? The Census | Dr. Platypus
Well, now historians have found that in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census."
What Was Taxation Like During Jesus' Days on Earth? - TeachingTheWord Ministries - Equipping the Scripture-Driven Church
"Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of the enrollment and that the tilled lands may retain those belonging to them" (p. 73)
Bob,
I cannot find the example of a period census that required returning to their homes I mentioned but wil keep looking.

Who says they cast lots or ridiculed him with the very words predicted, other than those who wrote the Bible? It's easy to fulfill prophecy when you know what has been predicted and you're making up the details.

Not when it comes to the fall of empires or the destruction of a nations pre-emanate status from a certain date forever more. Nor the fact that Israel became a nation again on a certain day or that they would not be overcome after that day. This defies logic when you consider they have been attacked by their Nabors repeatedly which outnumber them by approx. 80 - 1. Before you say it they did it several times without outside help and even with help they were vastly outnumbered and should have been overcome. I have seen a battle report in a documentary about the 6 days where a commander recorded the change in the situation on the 4th day as an unexplainable miracle in the battle report. Nor the splitting of Alexander’s empire into 4 parts and what each parts role would be in detail for years. Trying to explain away over a thousand prophecies just seems desperate. In fact many scholars say the only thing necessary to prove the bible is prophecy alone.

That's because they best illustrate the imperfection of God's word. If you have a scientific claim from the Bible so specific as to render chance illogical, I suggest you present it.

Are you suggesting that the accurate description of hydrological cycles is chance? Or that there are currents in the bottom of the oceans was luck? Or that air has mass and weight was a fluke?

 

[illykitty]

Abrahamic faiths are most often the ones to claim to be right or true. Especially Christianity and Islam. Both say they have proof. So which proof is right? There's no way of knowing. How is the bible in any way more real and true than the Quran or vice versa. What makes the Bhagavad Gita not true?

 

[1robin]

Abrahamic faiths are most often the ones to claim to be right or true. Especially Christianity and Islam. Both say they have proof. So which proof is right? There's no way of knowing. How is the bible in any way more real and true than the Quran or vice versa. What makes the Bhagavad Gita not true?

Try post 2226 in this thread and post any comparable list from either the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita. It really isn't that hard to determine the one with by far the most reliable and extensive textual attestation if you are willing to investigate. It is harder to go from the most likely to the absolute truth of that realigion but that is where God comes in.

 

[England my lionheart]

This is the promised full response to LIONHEART and CAMANINTX:
Shalom,

Impressive as your list of notable people is,it reminds me of the list of notable people responsible for the legend of King Arthur,nobody actually witnessed an Arthur or the Holy Grail yet there are people out there searching for the Grail,Sir Thomas Mallory's book Morte D'Arthur is a great source for this legend mixing both English,Welsh and French stories of different people into one Man,i think this may be the case with Jesus,just my opinion though.

 

[1robin]

Impressive as your list of notable people is,it reminds me of the list of notable people responsible for the legend of King Arthur,nobody actually witnessed an Arthur or the Holy Grail yet there are people out there searching for the Grail,Sir Thomas Mallory's book Morte D'Arthur is a great source for this legend mixing both English,Welsh and French stories of different people into one Man,i think this may be the case with Jesus,just my opinion though.

If you can seriously equate the list of historians, scholars, legal professionals, and witnesses that I produced with the myriad of contradictory non-eye witness accounts of the legend of Aurther I don't know what I could say. I am repeatedly stunned at what is appealed to in order to deny what is so obvious. If you rate the scholarship that surrounds the bible so low even though it is by far the most studied and scrutinised book in human history how do you have faith in any aspect of ancient history given in texts vastly less reliable but still proclaimed as true in colleges around the world? Seems a classic case of double standards.

 

[England my lionheart]

If you can seriously equate the list of historians, scholars, legal professionals, and witnesses that I produced with the myriad of contradictory non-eye witness accounts of the legend of Aurther I don't know what I could say. I am repeatedly stunned at what is appealed to in order to deny what is so obvious. If you rate the scholarship that surrounds the bible so low even though it is by far the most studied and scrutinised book in human history how do you have faith in any aspect of ancient history given in texts vastly less reliable but still proclaimed as true in colleges around the world? Seems a classic case of double standards.

Historians Scholars and legal professionals can be wrong,after all there are Scholars of Hinduism,Islam,Christianity and so on,which of these are right?.

There are no double standards here,i very much doubt the existence of the popularised Arthur,still at least Humans are good at writing good stories.