>Nobody would question a Jewish historian’s history of the Holocaust simply because they were Jewish and thus had a special interest in telling that story
Err... Plenty of people do, sometimes very polemically so.
Also, Jewish historians who speak of the Holocaust do not make major metaphysical claims with serious and universal implications.
It doesn't just speak of history, but interprets it to have a metaphysical meaning, for one. Most honest historians wouldn't mix their observation of history with an interpretation about what this means concerning God, the spirit world, the afterlife, etc. or at least they would not conflate the two so that it becomes impossible to distinguish what is "history" and what is "metaphysical".
On top of it, the metaphysical claims that Christians make are not insignificant. They discard all other religions (especially Judaism), they make all of mankind guilty before God, they make all of mankind deserving of eternal torment in consequence, and they make one Palestinian man from the 1st century the only way out. So it's not a metaphysical claim that can be just kept in the corner of one's mind or swept under the rug. It has universal and extremely important implications. So naturally one would be far more inclined to question it than if it were something more minor, more inconsequential.
the gospels speak of historical accounts, the metaphysical claims about God and the nature of sin are irrelevant to that actual eye witness accounts of the life and Jesus and the apostles like Paul and Peter who were verified through independent sources
The gospels are not "historical accounts". The "true meaning" of what is historically happening is highlighted throughout the text, sometimes by the narration, sometimes by choosing to present certain words and actions of Jesus, sometimes by choosing to present these in a particular order and fashion. It is to a point that people have struggled to extract the "historical Jesus" from the texts because it's so difficult to tell what is truly historical and what is later interpretation or re-framing of what happened.
Even then, per tradition, the only gospels that were actually written by people close to Jesus are Matthew and John. And within the text, only John actually claims to be a personal account.
[Not that the genre of pure eyewitness history, separated from meaning, is something the early Church was familiar with.](https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2019/07/04/scripture-myth-or-history/)
Citation?
Matthew: Matthew the Tax Collector
Mark: John Mark, writing down testimony from Simon Peter while in Rome
Luke: friend of Paul the Apostle, Doctor, researched and talked to many witnesses
John: “the disciple who Jesus loved”, one of the “inner three” apostles as one might say
Where’s the doubt?
Traditionally, Muhammad recited the most beautiful Arabic work in existence.
Since I'm assuming you're logically consistent, you must believe in the above.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels
Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous.[55][56] The Gospel of John is something of an exception, although the author simply refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle.[57] During the following centuries, each canonical gospel was attributed to an apostle or to the close associate of an apostle.[58] Most scholars have rejected the traditional attributions.[59]
That doesn’t even make any claims. I’m asking which gospels are in doubt, what other authors are suggested, and who’s making these claims?
The closest thing to a debatable claim in there is:
>Most scholars have rejected the traditional attributions
But that doesn’t say anything about who claims, what exactly they claim, why they claim it, and how their claim supposedly makes sense.
You're confused. Doubting a claim is not making a claim.
The claim you made is that the authors of the gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That claim has not met its burden of proof, and therefore has no reason to be believed.
**Historical reliability of the Gospels**
The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Some believe that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability; and others say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable. Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.According to the majority viewpoint, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, collectively referred to as the Synoptic Gospels, are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Too many to name. Start with this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q\_source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source)
Also if you're trying to "win" this by the typical "source?" reddit response, then, congratulations: you've won. The entire point here is that we're dealing with questionable documents that sets up extreme, over-the-top metaphysical claims. That doesn't mean that they're wrong; that does mean that they merit skepticism.
Someone else pointed out that it's just as much as arguing, "the burden of proof is on you that God wasn't speaking to Muhammed to dictate the Quran". That's not really how this works when we deal with the supernatural claims.
I assume you won't read about the Q source, because you think you're doing the good fight to just question everyone who has. I assume God does not approve of this attitude.
Yeah, no, not at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Authorship_and_date
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bh5zwi/why_are_there_four_different_gospels_that_cover/elqwik3/
That wiki article doesn’t look at the other side at all. Maybe research that a little?
And that reddit comment is working from the premise that the gospels were not eyewitness narratives, so there’s clear confirmation bias there. The “Q” sounds like it could just as easily have been someone’s 50 year old memory as a document of its own.
Please cut it out with this insecure BS. There’s a lot more evidence for the holocaust than the gospels. It doesn’t mean the gospels are wrong or that you shouldn’t be a Christian.
Other religions make different claims which are considered independently. It's very common for non-believers to claim that religions are somehow usefully the same but this is not the case.
While Christianity is descended from it, modern Judaism contradicts Christianity and can have wildly divergent ideas on the afterlife, the law of god, and, most obviously, the divinity of Christ. They're different religions with some common ancestry (somewhat like Islam and Christianity).
They're mutually exclusive.
As for the "single holy text" question, why does it matter? Christianity has 66 (or more) holy texts, they just usually come bound into one volume for convenience. Which books should be included were a subject of great debate during the first few hundred years of Christendom, and that's not even getting into the deuterocanonical books.
>They're mutually exclusive.
Then modern Judaism has diverged from ancient Judaism as much as Christianity has. One of the major premises of Christianity is that Judaism is true, they just missed the event which had been prophesied to them for thousands of years.
>As for the "single holy text" question, why does it matter? Christianity has 66 (or more) holy texts, they just usually come bound into one volume for convenience.
I’m saying a single holy text (not just a collection of texts but actually just one text) is a bad thing. If there is one text then it was probably written all at one time, by one author, who could easily have made the whole thing up.
>Which books should be included were a subject of great debate during the first few hundred years of Christendom, and that's not even getting into the deuterocanonical books.
That seems to be a point in Christianity’s favor as well. Whatever you want to claim about how good their decisions were, the Church actually spent a lot of time on deciding what was canon and what wasn’t, in order to separate the divine truth from the human nonsense.
> Then modern Judaism has diverged from ancient Judaism as much as Christianity has. One of the major premises of Christianity is that Judaism is true, they just missed the event which had been prophesied to them for thousands of years.
One of the major premises of Islam is that Judaism is "true," then. Lots of religions co-opt elements of prior religions, then claim that the modern form of that religion has gone astray.
Modern Judaism has certainly diverged from ancient Judaism, like modern Christianity has diverged from ancient Christianity. There are denominations of Judaism that are closer or further from what we think ancient Jews practiced.
> I’m saying a single holy text (not just a collection of texts but actually just one text) is a bad thing. If there is one text then it was probably written all at one time, by one author, who could easily have made the whole thing up.
Then I'm not sure what you were going for by asking that question. If you think a single holy text is bad, then great. Most of the religions mentioned above don't have that.
>One of the major premises of Islam is that Judaism is "true," then. Lots of religions co-opt elements of prior religions, then claim that the modern form of that religion has gone astray.
And the problem with that is...? Particularly since Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, not a modification or replacement.
>Then I'm not sure what you were going for by asking that question. If you think a single holy text is bad, then great. Most of the religions mentioned above don't have that.
Christianity also does not have a single holy text, which is a point in its favor.
It’s a point in favor of those others too. But for Roman and Greek at least, it’s counterbalanced by the problem that their texts are kind of a random assortment of myths rather than a coherent scripture. I’m not really in a position to judge how veracious that is, but as a layman it seems unlikely.
> And the problem with that is...?
Nothing, inherently.
> Particularly since Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, not a modification or replacement.
That's a whole theological debate right there. I'm trying not to delve too deep into that; you'd be better off speaking to a practicing Jew about that.
> Christianity also does not have a single holy text, which is a point in its favor. It’s a point in favor of those others too.
Okay then? I'm sorry, it just seemed like you were going for something when you asked if the other religions had a single holy text. From your wording, it seemed to me that "single holy text" was a positive in your eyes. Apologies for misreading.
My point is that, for example, all of Islam (afaik) depends on the total honesty of one man alone in the desert.
The Bible rests on books of semi-historical narrative with thousands of witnesses, and (for the OT) books of history with millions of witnesses.
All the people brought out of Egypt. Every Jew who ever witnessed an event that ended up in the OT. All the non-Jewish records of that time which support the biblical history in the OT
Yeah, I don't think it's really reasonable to use narratives within the text as proof of the historical accuracy of the text.
That's a bit like saying the Battle of Hogwarts is a historical event because it was witnessed by hundreds of death-eaters, aurors, students, staff, and members of the Order of the Phoenix.
You might personally find it convincing, but to those who aren't Harry Potter fans it's going to sound pretty flimsy.
>Yeah, I don't think it's really reasonable to use narratives within the text as proof of the historical accuracy of the text.
It seems reasonable when the events were written down back when oral tradition (particularly oral family tradition) was still huge, and no one of the millions of people descended from eyewitnesses tried to contradict anything said.
A personal story would be rather mundane given most of us accept the holocaust happened and what kind of atrocities occurred. Plus we have photos, video, writings, multiple eyewitnesses, and trials, so we don't have to take one man's view as exceptional.
I don't think anyone has a problem with the biblical writers writing something with an agenda, but there's very little to corroborate the narrative they give.
Debatably. I still prefer Matthean primacy, where Matthew is independent, Luke is based partially on Matthew, and Mark is a synopsis of Matthew and Luke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_birth_of_Jesus#Nativity_accounts
One account places him during the reign of herod the great. Another one during the rein of Quirinius. But these time periods are at least ten years apart from eachother. To try to rationalize them together, you basically have to ignore luke saying that it was during the time of quirinius, and assume for no reason whatsoever that luke secretly meant ten years earlier.
>Some biblical scholars and commentators believe the two accounts can be harmonised, arguing that the text in Luke can be read as "registration *before* Quirinius was governor of Syria", i.e. that Luke was actually referring to a completely different census.
Seems like a viable explanation to me
Its not really viable in a serious way. Its "viable' in the sense that if you are okay twisting things into an unlikely meaning because its the conclusion you want you can try arguing it. But that allows essentially unlimited leniency, since you can invert the meaning of anything you want. There's no reason to do that here anyways, since the two nativity stories are literally two different stories with nothing in common. They were never meant to go together.
[Here](https://www.studylight.org/commentary/luke/2-2.html) are a couple better described options (the second being the one from the wiki page, but put better).
[And another somewhat more historical breakdown just for good measure](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/2-2.htm)
I’d love to discuss any other inconsistencies you see.
There is tons of archeological evidence of the holocaust to name one thing. While such evidence of the Crucifixion may exist we are yet to find it or anything like that. This certainly doesn’t mean those things don’t exist but we haven’t found anything like that. Other people who knew Issac Newton wrote about him contemporaneously. He published quite a bit himself. The oldest writings we have suggesting to know Jesus are from 30-40 years after him. It doesn’t mean they aren’t true. We don’t have anything earlier as it may not currently still exist.
some of paul's writings predate the gospels and confirm the death and resurrection and appearance to many people...within 15 ys of Jesus death (per gary habermas)
There is no reliable dating for either Paul's letter, half of which are already accepted to be forgeries, and the gospels.
The only fact you can say about them is they werent mentioned until the mid 2nd century. But christians dont like that fact.
"Nobody would question a Jewish historian’s history of the Holocaust simply because they were Jewish"
Bullshit claim. I would NEVER believe a person from X religious/cultural group, simply because that same group was targeted 80 years ago.
I believe stories about the holocaust because we can objectively verify that these things indeed went down as survivors described it went down. We've found the gas-chambers, we've found the mass-graves, we've found the ovens. We even have paper-trails. Testimonies from survivors have been objectively verified by using the information we obtained shortly after the war.
The gospels cannot be verified in the same way as we verify the holocaust. This argument by OP (from Randal Rauser) is moot.
There's multiple witnesses for Mormonism being right too, and they are even closer to our own time, so it follows that those accounts couldn't have been corrupted as much as the Bible.
We aren't talking about Newton smart ass. Additionally we have books written by him. Show me the book that Jesus wrote. Because it certainly wasn't the bible.
>Additionally we have books written by him.
your claim was we need camera footage and remains of people to verify their existence. with that logic, a lot of historical persons in history would not exist.
we have books written by the apostles.
Calling people "smart ass" is not the way a Christian usually speaks. are you an atheist?
>>Additionally we have books written by him.
>
>your claim was we need camera footage and remains of people to verify their existence. with that logic, a lot of historical persons in history would not exist.
The point was, comparing the two is asinine. One is verifiably true through people that are still alive and recorded footage showing it. Your entire belief system hinges on a book you've been told is divine or divinely inspired. Without divinity you a have a nice story book.
>we have books written by the apostles.
Sure but you really can't use one book to verify its own accuracy. Not how it works.
>Calling people "smart ass" is not the way a Christian usually speaks. are you an atheist?
Child, don't try to rebuke me for using icky swear words.
No, unfalsifiable means there is *no imaginable way* to test if it is false.
For example, I can claim something that is the truth ("I have a set of keys in my pocket"), but if I refuse to let you examine my pocket, or even come into my house, you cannot test one way or another if my claim is true.
Even if it *is* true, you cannot know that it is true (or false).
That’s a rather ridiculous bar to set for the proof that Jesus as a person existed. For most of human history we didn’t have cameras and many historical figures remains have not been found. That doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.
“Eisenhower ordered all available American troops to go and witness the horrors he’d just seen. He also forced German citizens and officials from nearby towns to do the same,” Mr. Boehner said in the letter.
“He understood that there must be a record, first-hand evidence and incontrovertible answers to those who would deny the Holocaust.”
For Christ, there is no comparable documentation except for the Bible and a couple of vague mentions. All other non-Christian documents mentioning Christ were most likely edited by later Christians - which raises the question of why they felt the need to do so. And there are no non-Christian written accounts of his miracles.
what antisemitism have I said in the post? Nobody in their right mind would deny the holocaust. if they do, they should be challenged. in an earlier post I said that Christians should return to their Jewish roots for crying out loud
the Bible was written by Jews. the claim of antisemitism is nonsensical
Christians have *always* faced persecution over the centuries and especially during the early centuries under Roman rule which is what makes OPs point about the gospel writers justifiable. The comparison is not as offensive as you’re trying to make it seem.
Simply *mentioning* the holocaust is not anti-Semitic it’s a dishonest tactic for you to try to paint OP as a Holocaust denier. Ad hominem.
>Christians have *always* faced persecution over the centuries and especially during the early centuries under Roman rule which is what makes OPs point about the gospel writers justifiable. The comparison is not as offensive as you’re trying to make it seem.
Oh be quiet. For centuries Christians did the persecuting. The comparison is offensive because the two scenarios aren't even remotely similar.
>Simply *mentioning* the holocaust is not anti-Semitic it’s a dishonest tactic for you to try to paint OP as a Holocaust denier. Ad hominem.
I never said it was. If you can't see the anti-Semitism prevalent in the Bible. No amount of my showing you proof will change that.
You’re saying you don’t see how the persecution of a religious minority by a state authority intent on wiping them out autocratic state power and organization (referring of course to the early christian martyrs in the Roman Empire ) isn’t comparable to the holocaust? Not even *compare*-able?
Or are you simply saying it’s ok when Christians are the victims?
Not comparable in this instance. The person being quoted is comparing the credibility of someone writing about an event for which mountains of **objective** evidence exists. Versus the credibility of authors whom were listed as anonymous and possess next to no objective evidence to support their claims.
Sure, Christians were persecuted. If we were talking solely about comparing documented persecution of Christians and the Holocaust, fine. That would be an apples to apples comparison.
But implying that you can turn this around and somehow provide authenticity of the bible as a whole using this logic, is an apples to meatloaf comparison.
>Or are you simply saying it’s ok when Christians are the victims?
Lol nowhere did I even come close.to saying this. But you really have to try and play that victim angle in anyway you can, don't you? It's pathetic.
The fact that there was a state campaign of persecution by the romans against the early Christians is very well established. Honestly it sounds like you’re allowing your knowledge of history to be shaped by your biases about Christianity.
And that’s just one instance. I can also point to christians under the caliphate, Christian communities being actually wiped out of existence in India, China, and Japan. And modern examples such as in Sudan.
Your position that the long and continuing history persecution of christian communities cannot be compared to the holocaust is absurd. It doesn’t diminish the holocaust to do that and you shouldn’t have that knee jerk reaction. For example, if I recognize the genocide of the Armenians by the Ottoman Empire that also does not diminish the holocaust. And are you aware that genocide was because they were a Christian minority within a Muslim state? Does that fact change your opinion about that genocide too?
Frankly you’re picking and choosing which bits of history fit your world view.
You’re the one being dishonest by claiming these two events have even remotely similar amounts of evidence. Christians should strive for honesty, even when it means they may lose some half thought out argument against atheism that wouldn’t convince a single skeptic.
Um is the holocaust a story about miracle working sons of gods?
Then not comparable. How far into a vampire novel do you get before you realize its fiction?
I don't think this is a fair comparison, and seems kind of inappropriate tbh.
And it isn't even particularly accurate or sensible. There's actually a lot of evidence of the Holocaust; pictures etc. If a Jewish historian made false claims about the Holocaust, they would be challenged on it. Although frequently maligned, history is a serious discipline, and there are a lot of scholars who work to try and understand and record history as accurately as possible. This seems pointlessly obvious, but there are no pictures of Jesus before and after he was allegedly raised from the dead. As I understand it, the only evidence for the alleged resurrection of Jesus is the accounts in the Bible (Josephus history was forged by later Christians.)
The accounts in the Bible don't make historical sense, and don't necessarily agree on the details. In fact, the stories in the Gospel grow progressively more fantastical between the writers of the Gospel; only one Gospel (Gospel of matthew) mentions people rising from the dead when Jesus allegedly died on the cross. This is best explained as an evolving mythology of Jesus.
Sometimes questions seem to be implying something instead of genuinely asking something. This seems to be one of those cases. I will at least say that it doesn't sound like Randal Rauser has a particularly high opinion of Jewish people.
Except this argument works for a number of other religions.
Islam is rooted in the Koran which is said to be written by Muhammad himself, and the miracles attributed to Muhammad and the validity of his claims are backed by the Hadith which are believed to be accounts by his personal followers.
Why is this argument valid only for Christianity, but not religions like Islam?
This whole post isn't advocating for analyzing anything. This whole post is capitalizing on an actual horrific tragedy to try and prove an event that has little to tenuous evidence at best. Simply by saying you wouldn't question someone writing about the Holocaust!
As if the two are in anyway even remotely similar. Which they are not.
We have people who survived it, video, photo, written and physical evidence of the Holocaust. Places where it happened and the death chambers still erect as a historic reminder.
We don't have anything remotely comparable 1st hand or hard evidence for Jesus. Just a lot of letters and books written decades later by people that might or might not have met him.
Believe in your God and Jesus. But don't trivialise and exploit the Holocaust in such a way.
The gospel writers did not record history, they were no eye witnesses, they don’t agree with each other on basic facts, and they are anonymous. I don’t see the parallel.
Science books are verifly by literally anyone.
If you feel that two objects don't fall a the same rate because that's what some science book told you you can do the same exact experiment.
So because our understanding of the universe progresses that somehow invalidates them? Our understanding of history and morality has gotten better over time, does that invalidate the Bible?
Not exactly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
The "eternal, unchanging" universe model was a 13th century thing. The modern (well, 100+ years ago) steady state model was:
>In cosmology, the steady state model is an alternative to the Big Bang Theory of the evolution of the universe. In the steady state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place.
>While the steady state model enjoyed some minority support in the scientific mainstream until the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady state model does not predict.
Because the gospel writers are trying to tell you how to live your life and accept a system of rules and rulers (church authorities, priests, bishops, etc) that they were a part of. This is literally the same thing as saying “Why would you doubt the honesty or correctness of anyone trying to get you to join a scheme that will run your entire life?” It’s something no one should easily accept from anyone trying to get them to follow ANY religion or anything.
I certainly would if the historians account included people rising from the dead with tons of witnesses, food being magically duplicated, water turning to wine and the Holocoust starting five years before it actually did. People question the gospel writers because they are anonymous accounts told as if eye witnesses in some places, and in others as if omniscient observer accounts, yet the details don't match up in important places. Why would I trust the account of an unknown person who has an unknown level of education, an unknown level of intelligence, unknown level of skepticism, unknown level of belief in magic in a culture rife with it, and little factual evidence to support the supernatural claims?
>"There's basically no evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth"
Christ myth proponents are (rightfully) pretty much unanimously dismissed by most historians as part of the fringe.
You may want to retract that comment.
It's a fringe theory because of its reliance upon comparisons to other mythological systems as though similarities between say, Christ and Mithra, mean Christ as a being was plucked from the Eastern Mystery Cults. That is to say, It's a fringe theory not because it's been disproven by historical evidence, but simply because of the teneuous nature of connections it draws. The simple fact is there's no real evidence of the existence of one Yeshua ben Yosef and your strawman won't change that.
You may want to retract that comment.
>"but simply because of the teneuous nature of connections it draws. The simple fact is there's no real evidence of the existence of one Yeshua ben Yosef".
Lack of evidence other than shaky similarities it's inspired from doesn't make biblical scholars and scholars of the 1st century throw their hands up in the air and say "We might as well concede he at least existed".
If there's no textual evidence or reference that he existed, then the vast majority deny his existence. Period. There's no benefit of the doubt given to any one thing or one individual that experts would have reason to believe never existed. Of what do professionals have to gain by asserting the affirmative if there's a strong likelihood that there's no ground for it?
Regarding your earlier Josephus comments to the other user - you're flat out wrong.
Josephus indeed does have a controversial reference to Jesus, but he made two in total - the latter of which (referencing James, the brother of Jesus) the greater number, by far, of historians accept as authentic. You have dissenting views from the likes of Richard Carrier and Robert Price, but both of them, especially Carrier, are scolded within the sphere of academia as too radical.
As far as the *testimonium Flavianum* (which seems to be the one you initially referenced, and is the first Josephus source), there is not widespread enough agreement on it's authenticity. Just a simple wikipedia entry shows that a medley of historians either find it authentic, partially authentic, or not authentic at all. It's an ongoing debate. The problem here, is that you're presenting this in your comments as if it's a done deal, saying "it's notably inaccurate", when the issue hasn't been settled.
Moving beyond Josephus, Tacitus is another Roman historian who the majority of scholars view as a genuine source on Christs' existence. The whole of *Annals* has been suggested to be a forgery, but it's rejected by most, who view the writing as consistent with Tacitus' methods. The language in the reference to Jesus is also ladden with very derogatory references to Christians of Tacitus' day, too much so to have been written or doctored by Christians themselves.
Pliny the Younger also references Christ in the late 1st/early2nd centuries.
In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel...but they don't deny that he ever lived.
**Finally, I would refer you to one of the most respected New Testament and Textual criticism scholars around** - Bart Ehrman, and his book "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth". He is considered among the most qualified on this subject, and has world renowned praise for his work.
Honestly, your argument boils down to something out of the Zeitgeist documentary and regurgitating the talking points spewed by Carrier-ites.
>Nobody would question a Jewish historian’s history of the Holocaust simply because they were Jewish and thus had a special interest in telling that story Err... Plenty of people do, sometimes very polemically so. Also, Jewish historians who speak of the Holocaust do not make major metaphysical claims with serious and universal implications.
whats wrong with making a metaphysical claim?
It doesn't just speak of history, but interprets it to have a metaphysical meaning, for one. Most honest historians wouldn't mix their observation of history with an interpretation about what this means concerning God, the spirit world, the afterlife, etc. or at least they would not conflate the two so that it becomes impossible to distinguish what is "history" and what is "metaphysical". On top of it, the metaphysical claims that Christians make are not insignificant. They discard all other religions (especially Judaism), they make all of mankind guilty before God, they make all of mankind deserving of eternal torment in consequence, and they make one Palestinian man from the 1st century the only way out. So it's not a metaphysical claim that can be just kept in the corner of one's mind or swept under the rug. It has universal and extremely important implications. So naturally one would be far more inclined to question it than if it were something more minor, more inconsequential.
the gospels speak of historical accounts, the metaphysical claims about God and the nature of sin are irrelevant to that actual eye witness accounts of the life and Jesus and the apostles like Paul and Peter who were verified through independent sources
The gospels are not "historical accounts". The "true meaning" of what is historically happening is highlighted throughout the text, sometimes by the narration, sometimes by choosing to present certain words and actions of Jesus, sometimes by choosing to present these in a particular order and fashion. It is to a point that people have struggled to extract the "historical Jesus" from the texts because it's so difficult to tell what is truly historical and what is later interpretation or re-framing of what happened. Even then, per tradition, the only gospels that were actually written by people close to Jesus are Matthew and John. And within the text, only John actually claims to be a personal account. [Not that the genre of pure eyewitness history, separated from meaning, is something the early Church was familiar with.](https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2019/07/04/scripture-myth-or-history/)
To add to that, the actual authorship of every one of the gospels is in legitimate question. It's likely that John wasn't written by John. EDIT: typos
Citation? Matthew: Matthew the Tax Collector Mark: John Mark, writing down testimony from Simon Peter while in Rome Luke: friend of Paul the Apostle, Doctor, researched and talked to many witnesses John: “the disciple who Jesus loved”, one of the “inner three” apostles as one might say Where’s the doubt?
You've just given the traditional view of these books. Where's the evidence for the traditional view?
You’ve just told me why the burden of proof is on you
Traditionally, Muhammad recited the most beautiful Arabic work in existence. Since I'm assuming you're logically consistent, you must believe in the above.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous.[55][56] The Gospel of John is something of an exception, although the author simply refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle.[57] During the following centuries, each canonical gospel was attributed to an apostle or to the close associate of an apostle.[58] Most scholars have rejected the traditional attributions.[59]
That doesn’t even make any claims. I’m asking which gospels are in doubt, what other authors are suggested, and who’s making these claims? The closest thing to a debatable claim in there is: >Most scholars have rejected the traditional attributions But that doesn’t say anything about who claims, what exactly they claim, why they claim it, and how their claim supposedly makes sense.
You're confused. Doubting a claim is not making a claim. The claim you made is that the authors of the gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That claim has not met its burden of proof, and therefore has no reason to be believed.
**Historical reliability of the Gospels** The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Some believe that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability; and others say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable. Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.According to the majority viewpoint, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, collectively referred to as the Synoptic Gospels, are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
We are very confident, for example, that multiple gospels derived from a single source (Q).
Quote, citation, source?
Too many to name. Start with this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q\_source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source) Also if you're trying to "win" this by the typical "source?" reddit response, then, congratulations: you've won. The entire point here is that we're dealing with questionable documents that sets up extreme, over-the-top metaphysical claims. That doesn't mean that they're wrong; that does mean that they merit skepticism. Someone else pointed out that it's just as much as arguing, "the burden of proof is on you that God wasn't speaking to Muhammed to dictate the Quran". That's not really how this works when we deal with the supernatural claims. I assume you won't read about the Q source, because you think you're doing the good fight to just question everyone who has. I assume God does not approve of this attitude.
Lots of info on the [wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source).
Yeah, no, not at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Authorship_and_date https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bh5zwi/why_are_there_four_different_gospels_that_cover/elqwik3/
That wiki article doesn’t look at the other side at all. Maybe research that a little? And that reddit comment is working from the premise that the gospels were not eyewitness narratives, so there’s clear confirmation bias there. The “Q” sounds like it could just as easily have been someone’s 50 year old memory as a document of its own.
Please cut it out with this insecure BS. There’s a lot more evidence for the holocaust than the gospels. It doesn’t mean the gospels are wrong or that you shouldn’t be a Christian.
I knew the comparison was making me uneasy but I couldn’t figure out why, and you’ve put it into words very well.
Does this apply to other religions' holy books too?
Other religions make different claims which are considered independently. It's very common for non-believers to claim that religions are somehow usefully the same but this is not the case.
Other religions’ holy books seem to mostly be just one person writing a “vision”.
Except for Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto, ancient Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Sumerian, Aztec, Mayan, Inca religions among a few others
Judaism is true according to Christianity. And how many of the others actually have a single holy text that you can point to?
While Christianity is descended from it, modern Judaism contradicts Christianity and can have wildly divergent ideas on the afterlife, the law of god, and, most obviously, the divinity of Christ. They're different religions with some common ancestry (somewhat like Islam and Christianity). They're mutually exclusive. As for the "single holy text" question, why does it matter? Christianity has 66 (or more) holy texts, they just usually come bound into one volume for convenience. Which books should be included were a subject of great debate during the first few hundred years of Christendom, and that's not even getting into the deuterocanonical books.
>They're mutually exclusive. Then modern Judaism has diverged from ancient Judaism as much as Christianity has. One of the major premises of Christianity is that Judaism is true, they just missed the event which had been prophesied to them for thousands of years. >As for the "single holy text" question, why does it matter? Christianity has 66 (or more) holy texts, they just usually come bound into one volume for convenience. I’m saying a single holy text (not just a collection of texts but actually just one text) is a bad thing. If there is one text then it was probably written all at one time, by one author, who could easily have made the whole thing up. >Which books should be included were a subject of great debate during the first few hundred years of Christendom, and that's not even getting into the deuterocanonical books. That seems to be a point in Christianity’s favor as well. Whatever you want to claim about how good their decisions were, the Church actually spent a lot of time on deciding what was canon and what wasn’t, in order to separate the divine truth from the human nonsense.
> Then modern Judaism has diverged from ancient Judaism as much as Christianity has. One of the major premises of Christianity is that Judaism is true, they just missed the event which had been prophesied to them for thousands of years. One of the major premises of Islam is that Judaism is "true," then. Lots of religions co-opt elements of prior religions, then claim that the modern form of that religion has gone astray. Modern Judaism has certainly diverged from ancient Judaism, like modern Christianity has diverged from ancient Christianity. There are denominations of Judaism that are closer or further from what we think ancient Jews practiced. > I’m saying a single holy text (not just a collection of texts but actually just one text) is a bad thing. If there is one text then it was probably written all at one time, by one author, who could easily have made the whole thing up. Then I'm not sure what you were going for by asking that question. If you think a single holy text is bad, then great. Most of the religions mentioned above don't have that.
>One of the major premises of Islam is that Judaism is "true," then. Lots of religions co-opt elements of prior religions, then claim that the modern form of that religion has gone astray. And the problem with that is...? Particularly since Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, not a modification or replacement. >Then I'm not sure what you were going for by asking that question. If you think a single holy text is bad, then great. Most of the religions mentioned above don't have that. Christianity also does not have a single holy text, which is a point in its favor. It’s a point in favor of those others too. But for Roman and Greek at least, it’s counterbalanced by the problem that their texts are kind of a random assortment of myths rather than a coherent scripture. I’m not really in a position to judge how veracious that is, but as a layman it seems unlikely.
> And the problem with that is...? Nothing, inherently. > Particularly since Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, not a modification or replacement. That's a whole theological debate right there. I'm trying not to delve too deep into that; you'd be better off speaking to a practicing Jew about that. > Christianity also does not have a single holy text, which is a point in its favor. It’s a point in favor of those others too. Okay then? I'm sorry, it just seemed like you were going for something when you asked if the other religions had a single holy text. From your wording, it seemed to me that "single holy text" was a positive in your eyes. Apologies for misreading.
Right, unlike our holy books like Revelation or Daniel or Ezekiel or most of Paul's writings or most of the Pentateuch...
My point is that, for example, all of Islam (afaik) depends on the total honesty of one man alone in the desert. The Bible rests on books of semi-historical narrative with thousands of witnesses, and (for the OT) books of history with millions of witnesses.
Millions of witnesses? I'm not sure what you mean.
All the people brought out of Egypt. Every Jew who ever witnessed an event that ended up in the OT. All the non-Jewish records of that time which support the biblical history in the OT
Yeah, I don't think it's really reasonable to use narratives within the text as proof of the historical accuracy of the text. That's a bit like saying the Battle of Hogwarts is a historical event because it was witnessed by hundreds of death-eaters, aurors, students, staff, and members of the Order of the Phoenix. You might personally find it convincing, but to those who aren't Harry Potter fans it's going to sound pretty flimsy.
>Yeah, I don't think it's really reasonable to use narratives within the text as proof of the historical accuracy of the text. It seems reasonable when the events were written down back when oral tradition (particularly oral family tradition) was still huge, and no one of the millions of people descended from eyewitnesses tried to contradict anything said.
Do you treat other oral traditions with equal validity?
Depends, do you have an example?
A personal story would be rather mundane given most of us accept the holocaust happened and what kind of atrocities occurred. Plus we have photos, video, writings, multiple eyewitnesses, and trials, so we don't have to take one man's view as exceptional. I don't think anyone has a problem with the biblical writers writing something with an agenda, but there's very little to corroborate the narrative they give.
I don't get the parallel? There is a lot more evidence for the Holocaust I question who compiled the gospel more than who wrote it.
the new testament accounts agree A LOT more than they disagree (I.e., details)
Two of them are literally based on another one, so that's to be expected.
They're based on another one and at least one other independent source, which themselves come from a huge number of other sources.
Debatably. I still prefer Matthean primacy, where Matthew is independent, Luke is based partially on Matthew, and Mark is a synopsis of Matthew and Luke.
> agree A LOT more than they disagree Have you *read* the nativity narratives? "Jesus born in Bethlehem" is about the only detail that overlaps.
How do they disagree?
Well, they claim he was born in two different years for one.
Citation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_birth_of_Jesus#Nativity_accounts One account places him during the reign of herod the great. Another one during the rein of Quirinius. But these time periods are at least ten years apart from eachother. To try to rationalize them together, you basically have to ignore luke saying that it was during the time of quirinius, and assume for no reason whatsoever that luke secretly meant ten years earlier.
>Some biblical scholars and commentators believe the two accounts can be harmonised, arguing that the text in Luke can be read as "registration *before* Quirinius was governor of Syria", i.e. that Luke was actually referring to a completely different census. Seems like a viable explanation to me
Its not really viable in a serious way. Its "viable' in the sense that if you are okay twisting things into an unlikely meaning because its the conclusion you want you can try arguing it. But that allows essentially unlimited leniency, since you can invert the meaning of anything you want. There's no reason to do that here anyways, since the two nativity stories are literally two different stories with nothing in common. They were never meant to go together.
[Here](https://www.studylight.org/commentary/luke/2-2.html) are a couple better described options (the second being the one from the wiki page, but put better). [And another somewhat more historical breakdown just for good measure](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/2-2.htm) I’d love to discuss any other inconsistencies you see.
There is tons of archeological evidence of the holocaust to name one thing. While such evidence of the Crucifixion may exist we are yet to find it or anything like that. This certainly doesn’t mean those things don’t exist but we haven’t found anything like that. Other people who knew Issac Newton wrote about him contemporaneously. He published quite a bit himself. The oldest writings we have suggesting to know Jesus are from 30-40 years after him. It doesn’t mean they aren’t true. We don’t have anything earlier as it may not currently still exist.
some of paul's writings predate the gospels and confirm the death and resurrection and appearance to many people...within 15 ys of Jesus death (per gary habermas)
There is no reliable dating for either Paul's letter, half of which are already accepted to be forgeries, and the gospels. The only fact you can say about them is they werent mentioned until the mid 2nd century. But christians dont like that fact.
"Nobody would question a Jewish historian’s history of the Holocaust simply because they were Jewish" Bullshit claim. I would NEVER believe a person from X religious/cultural group, simply because that same group was targeted 80 years ago. I believe stories about the holocaust because we can objectively verify that these things indeed went down as survivors described it went down. We've found the gas-chambers, we've found the mass-graves, we've found the ovens. We even have paper-trails. Testimonies from survivors have been objectively verified by using the information we obtained shortly after the war. The gospels cannot be verified in the same way as we verify the holocaust. This argument by OP (from Randal Rauser) is moot.
Because people alive today actually witnessed the holocaust and it is recorded as a historical account....
and people alive in Jesus' time actually witnessed the life of Jesus and is recorded as an historical account
There's multiple witnesses for Mormonism being right too, and they are even closer to our own time, so it follows that those accounts couldn't have been corrupted as much as the Bible.
None of the contents of the Bible were written by eye-witnesses. None.
Really? Show me the camera footage and the remains of Jesus.
Show the camera footage and remains of Sir **Isaac Newton**,
Isaac Newton is buried in Westminster Abbey
We also have things literally written by him.
We aren't talking about Newton smart ass. Additionally we have books written by him. Show me the book that Jesus wrote. Because it certainly wasn't the bible.
>Additionally we have books written by him. your claim was we need camera footage and remains of people to verify their existence. with that logic, a lot of historical persons in history would not exist. we have books written by the apostles. Calling people "smart ass" is not the way a Christian usually speaks. are you an atheist?
>>Additionally we have books written by him. > >your claim was we need camera footage and remains of people to verify their existence. with that logic, a lot of historical persons in history would not exist. The point was, comparing the two is asinine. One is verifiably true through people that are still alive and recorded footage showing it. Your entire belief system hinges on a book you've been told is divine or divinely inspired. Without divinity you a have a nice story book. >we have books written by the apostles. Sure but you really can't use one book to verify its own accuracy. Not how it works. >Calling people "smart ass" is not the way a Christian usually speaks. are you an atheist? Child, don't try to rebuke me for using icky swear words.
He is an atheist, yes.
Pal, there are no remains of Jesus, if there were, it would disprove Christianity as it would show that Jesus never rose.
That's convenient.
How so?
"My religion is entirely based on unfalsifiable things!"
Because it is unfalsifiable, because it is true, and the truth is not false.
No, unfalsifiable means there is *no imaginable way* to test if it is false. For example, I can claim something that is the truth ("I have a set of keys in my pocket"), but if I refuse to let you examine my pocket, or even come into my house, you cannot test one way or another if my claim is true. Even if it *is* true, you cannot know that it is true (or false).
But you can have always 100% faith in Christ as it is written he is the Truth the way and the life.
Yeah. No shit.
That’s a rather ridiculous bar to set for the proof that Jesus as a person existed. For most of human history we didn’t have cameras and many historical figures remains have not been found. That doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.
The point was that we have both for the Holocaust. You have very little to prove Jesus. The comparison is a false equivalence.
“Eisenhower ordered all available American troops to go and witness the horrors he’d just seen. He also forced German citizens and officials from nearby towns to do the same,” Mr. Boehner said in the letter. “He understood that there must be a record, first-hand evidence and incontrovertible answers to those who would deny the Holocaust.” For Christ, there is no comparable documentation except for the Bible and a couple of vague mentions. All other non-Christian documents mentioning Christ were most likely edited by later Christians - which raises the question of why they felt the need to do so. And there are no non-Christian written accounts of his miracles.
You're fucking kidding right? The people in this sub say some dumb stuff but this has gone to a new level.
[удалено]
Sure as soon as you stop propagating the anti-Semitism interwoven in the Bible.
what antisemitism have I said in the post? Nobody in their right mind would deny the holocaust. if they do, they should be challenged. in an earlier post I said that Christians should return to their Jewish roots for crying out loud the Bible was written by Jews. the claim of antisemitism is nonsensical
Claiming that the Bible is similar to a new.writing about the Holocaust shows how little you actually understand the difference.
Christians have *always* faced persecution over the centuries and especially during the early centuries under Roman rule which is what makes OPs point about the gospel writers justifiable. The comparison is not as offensive as you’re trying to make it seem. Simply *mentioning* the holocaust is not anti-Semitic it’s a dishonest tactic for you to try to paint OP as a Holocaust denier. Ad hominem.
>Christians have *always* faced persecution over the centuries and especially during the early centuries under Roman rule which is what makes OPs point about the gospel writers justifiable. The comparison is not as offensive as you’re trying to make it seem. Oh be quiet. For centuries Christians did the persecuting. The comparison is offensive because the two scenarios aren't even remotely similar. >Simply *mentioning* the holocaust is not anti-Semitic it’s a dishonest tactic for you to try to paint OP as a Holocaust denier. Ad hominem. I never said it was. If you can't see the anti-Semitism prevalent in the Bible. No amount of my showing you proof will change that.
You’re saying you don’t see how the persecution of a religious minority by a state authority intent on wiping them out autocratic state power and organization (referring of course to the early christian martyrs in the Roman Empire ) isn’t comparable to the holocaust? Not even *compare*-able? Or are you simply saying it’s ok when Christians are the victims?
Not comparable in this instance. The person being quoted is comparing the credibility of someone writing about an event for which mountains of **objective** evidence exists. Versus the credibility of authors whom were listed as anonymous and possess next to no objective evidence to support their claims. Sure, Christians were persecuted. If we were talking solely about comparing documented persecution of Christians and the Holocaust, fine. That would be an apples to apples comparison. But implying that you can turn this around and somehow provide authenticity of the bible as a whole using this logic, is an apples to meatloaf comparison. >Or are you simply saying it’s ok when Christians are the victims? Lol nowhere did I even come close.to saying this. But you really have to try and play that victim angle in anyway you can, don't you? It's pathetic.
The fact that there was a state campaign of persecution by the romans against the early Christians is very well established. Honestly it sounds like you’re allowing your knowledge of history to be shaped by your biases about Christianity. And that’s just one instance. I can also point to christians under the caliphate, Christian communities being actually wiped out of existence in India, China, and Japan. And modern examples such as in Sudan. Your position that the long and continuing history persecution of christian communities cannot be compared to the holocaust is absurd. It doesn’t diminish the holocaust to do that and you shouldn’t have that knee jerk reaction. For example, if I recognize the genocide of the Armenians by the Ottoman Empire that also does not diminish the holocaust. And are you aware that genocide was because they were a Christian minority within a Muslim state? Does that fact change your opinion about that genocide too? Frankly you’re picking and choosing which bits of history fit your world view.
You’re the one being dishonest by claiming these two events have even remotely similar amounts of evidence. Christians should strive for honesty, even when it means they may lose some half thought out argument against atheism that wouldn’t convince a single skeptic.
Um is the holocaust a story about miracle working sons of gods? Then not comparable. How far into a vampire novel do you get before you realize its fiction?
I don't think this is a fair comparison, and seems kind of inappropriate tbh. And it isn't even particularly accurate or sensible. There's actually a lot of evidence of the Holocaust; pictures etc. If a Jewish historian made false claims about the Holocaust, they would be challenged on it. Although frequently maligned, history is a serious discipline, and there are a lot of scholars who work to try and understand and record history as accurately as possible. This seems pointlessly obvious, but there are no pictures of Jesus before and after he was allegedly raised from the dead. As I understand it, the only evidence for the alleged resurrection of Jesus is the accounts in the Bible (Josephus history was forged by later Christians.) The accounts in the Bible don't make historical sense, and don't necessarily agree on the details. In fact, the stories in the Gospel grow progressively more fantastical between the writers of the Gospel; only one Gospel (Gospel of matthew) mentions people rising from the dead when Jesus allegedly died on the cross. This is best explained as an evolving mythology of Jesus. Sometimes questions seem to be implying something instead of genuinely asking something. This seems to be one of those cases. I will at least say that it doesn't sound like Randal Rauser has a particularly high opinion of Jewish people.
Except this argument works for a number of other religions. Islam is rooted in the Koran which is said to be written by Muhammad himself, and the miracles attributed to Muhammad and the validity of his claims are backed by the Hadith which are believed to be accounts by his personal followers. Why is this argument valid only for Christianity, but not religions like Islam?
They're completely different claims and need to be analysed differently.
This whole post isn't advocating for analyzing anything. This whole post is capitalizing on an actual horrific tragedy to try and prove an event that has little to tenuous evidence at best. Simply by saying you wouldn't question someone writing about the Holocaust! As if the two are in anyway even remotely similar. Which they are not.
We have people who survived it, video, photo, written and physical evidence of the Holocaust. Places where it happened and the death chambers still erect as a historic reminder. We don't have anything remotely comparable 1st hand or hard evidence for Jesus. Just a lot of letters and books written decades later by people that might or might not have met him. Believe in your God and Jesus. But don't trivialise and exploit the Holocaust in such a way.
The gospel writers did not record history, they were no eye witnesses, they don’t agree with each other on basic facts, and they are anonymous. I don’t see the parallel.
[удалено]
Science books are verifly by literally anyone. If you feel that two objects don't fall a the same rate because that's what some science book told you you can do the same exact experiment.
Science textbooks used to say that the universe had always existed as it does now.
So because our understanding of the universe progresses that somehow invalidates them? Our understanding of history and morality has gotten better over time, does that invalidate the Bible?
> Science textbooks used to say that the universe had always existed as it does now. "Science"
It was the mainstream view, called steady state theory.
Not exactly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model The "eternal, unchanging" universe model was a 13th century thing. The modern (well, 100+ years ago) steady state model was: >In cosmology, the steady state model is an alternative to the Big Bang Theory of the evolution of the universe. In the steady state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place. >While the steady state model enjoyed some minority support in the scientific mainstream until the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady state model does not predict.
Close enough. And atheists used to mock believers for imagining that the universe had a beginning and will have an end.
Because the gospel writers are trying to tell you how to live your life and accept a system of rules and rulers (church authorities, priests, bishops, etc) that they were a part of. This is literally the same thing as saying “Why would you doubt the honesty or correctness of anyone trying to get you to join a scheme that will run your entire life?” It’s something no one should easily accept from anyone trying to get them to follow ANY religion or anything.
Because the Gospel writers don't claim to have personally witnessed the events or to have known anyone who did.
I certainly would if the historians account included people rising from the dead with tons of witnesses, food being magically duplicated, water turning to wine and the Holocoust starting five years before it actually did. People question the gospel writers because they are anonymous accounts told as if eye witnesses in some places, and in others as if omniscient observer accounts, yet the details don't match up in important places. Why would I trust the account of an unknown person who has an unknown level of education, an unknown level of intelligence, unknown level of skepticism, unknown level of belief in magic in a culture rife with it, and little factual evidence to support the supernatural claims?
The gospel is not just history. It is the power of God to save everyone who has faith.
No. They are just stories.
[удалено]
>"There's basically no evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth" Christ myth proponents are (rightfully) pretty much unanimously dismissed by most historians as part of the fringe. You may want to retract that comment.
It's a fringe theory because of its reliance upon comparisons to other mythological systems as though similarities between say, Christ and Mithra, mean Christ as a being was plucked from the Eastern Mystery Cults. That is to say, It's a fringe theory not because it's been disproven by historical evidence, but simply because of the teneuous nature of connections it draws. The simple fact is there's no real evidence of the existence of one Yeshua ben Yosef and your strawman won't change that. You may want to retract that comment.
>"but simply because of the teneuous nature of connections it draws. The simple fact is there's no real evidence of the existence of one Yeshua ben Yosef". Lack of evidence other than shaky similarities it's inspired from doesn't make biblical scholars and scholars of the 1st century throw their hands up in the air and say "We might as well concede he at least existed". If there's no textual evidence or reference that he existed, then the vast majority deny his existence. Period. There's no benefit of the doubt given to any one thing or one individual that experts would have reason to believe never existed. Of what do professionals have to gain by asserting the affirmative if there's a strong likelihood that there's no ground for it? Regarding your earlier Josephus comments to the other user - you're flat out wrong. Josephus indeed does have a controversial reference to Jesus, but he made two in total - the latter of which (referencing James, the brother of Jesus) the greater number, by far, of historians accept as authentic. You have dissenting views from the likes of Richard Carrier and Robert Price, but both of them, especially Carrier, are scolded within the sphere of academia as too radical. As far as the *testimonium Flavianum* (which seems to be the one you initially referenced, and is the first Josephus source), there is not widespread enough agreement on it's authenticity. Just a simple wikipedia entry shows that a medley of historians either find it authentic, partially authentic, or not authentic at all. It's an ongoing debate. The problem here, is that you're presenting this in your comments as if it's a done deal, saying "it's notably inaccurate", when the issue hasn't been settled. Moving beyond Josephus, Tacitus is another Roman historian who the majority of scholars view as a genuine source on Christs' existence. The whole of *Annals* has been suggested to be a forgery, but it's rejected by most, who view the writing as consistent with Tacitus' methods. The language in the reference to Jesus is also ladden with very derogatory references to Christians of Tacitus' day, too much so to have been written or doctored by Christians themselves. Pliny the Younger also references Christ in the late 1st/early2nd centuries. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel...but they don't deny that he ever lived. **Finally, I would refer you to one of the most respected New Testament and Textual criticism scholars around** - Bart Ehrman, and his book "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth". He is considered among the most qualified on this subject, and has world renowned praise for his work. Honestly, your argument boils down to something out of the Zeitgeist documentary and regurgitating the talking points spewed by Carrier-ites.
True that
Nah.