[Agent Steel]

1. The authors themselves were not eyewitnesses to the things they wrote about
2. They were written over 4 decades after the events they purportedly described
3. They were based upon oral traditions and hence subject to the unreliability of human memory
4. They each had a clear theological bias and apologetic agenda
5. They each contained many identifiably fictitious literary forms
6. They were inconsistent with each other, except where one gospel plagiarizes the other
7. They were at odds with known historical facts
8. They had virtually no support from independent sources
9. They testified to events which in ordinary circumstances we would regard as unlikely in the extreme

[One Degree]

‘Belief’ does not require reason. To list reasons not to have belief is silly.
Your ‘belief’ reality can be described with linear logic is not reasonable.

[Besoeker]

‘Belief’ does not require reason.

It requires the suspension of reason.

[Potemkin]

It requires the suspension of reason.

We all believe all sorts of things about the world, with little rational basis, yet still think of ourselves as being 'rationalists'. As David Hume pointed out, even our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning is based on nothing more than the fact that it has done so on all previous mornings that we have experienced. Reason is a tiny island in a vast ocean of habit, assumption and faith.

[Saeko]

We all believe all sorts of things about the world, with little rational basis, yet still think of ourselves as being 'rationalists'. As David Hume pointed out, even our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning is based on nothing more than the fact that it has done so on all previous mornings that we have experienced. Reason is a tiny island in a vast ocean of habit, assumption and faith.

You don't seriously believe this, do you?

[Besoeker]

We all believe all sorts of things about the world, with little rational basis, yet still think of ourselves as being 'rationalists'. As David Hume pointed out, even our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning is based on nothing more than the fact that it has done so on all previous mornings that we have experienced. Reason is a tiny island in a vast ocean of habit, assumption and faith.

Then I would have disagreed with David Hume.

[Potemkin]

You don't seriously believe this, do you?

Yes I do. Science imposes very high standards of proof before we can say that something is definitely true. Asserting that the sun will rise tomorrow morning is not one of those things. After all, the sun might go nova during the night, in which case it will not 'rise' the next morning. That possibility cannot be ruled out. You should look up 'inductive reasoning' on Wikipedia.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes I do.

I do as well, but i go further and would say that almost all scientific reasoning is fallacious.

Hume's critique that inductive reasoning was logical fallacious was spot-on, as well as his critiques of inferring obligation from observation, and inferring causation from observed correlation....all ideas he stole from Berkeley I should add.

[One Degree]

It is a good idea to believe in scientific reasoning as long as you realize it does not apply beyond today.

[Heisenberg]

OK, I'll bite, just for the sake of argument.

1. The authors themselves were not eyewitnesses to the things they wrote about
2. They were written over 4 decades after the events they purportedly described
3. They were based upon oral traditions and hence subject to the unreliability of human memory

These things are true of most ancient sources, including sources for the existence of both Socrates and Alexander the Great.

Besides, four decades isn't actually that long, particularly for events of the magnitude of those described in the Gospels. As an example, if someone went to rural Afghanistan and asked someone about their experience of the Soviet invasion in the late 70s, it's unlikely they'd not remember it vividly.

4. They each had a clear theological bias and apologetic agenda

Again, this is true of works of history since time immemorial, and is still true today. Have you ever read Band of Brothers, for example? It has a very clear bias and agenda (that the western allies won WW2 because of their moral superiority and democratic values), and yet it is hardly an unreliable work of history.

5. They each contained many identifiably fictitious literary forms

I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean, other than that "they tell a story".

6. They were inconsistent with each other, except where one gospel plagiarizes the other

Inconsistent on details, but certainly not the main thrust of the narrative. Again, this is hardly unique to the gospels, and is true of most ancient documents.

7. They were at odds with known historical facts

The main case where this is true is that Augustus didn't hold a census around the time of Jesus' birth. It's hardly a vital part of the narrative though, since it is mainly designed to explain how Joseph and Mary came to be in Bethlehem.

8. They had virtually no support from independent sources

Josephus is a pretty decent independent source for Jesus' existence, although obviously far from perfect. And it's not particularly surprising that there aren't extensive historical documents for someone the Romans saw as a relatively inconsequential troublemaking zealot.

9. They testified to events which in ordinary circumstances we would regard as unlikely in the extreme

Certainly true, but then everyone who was an eyewitness to the events described went to very gruesome deaths rather than renouncing what they saw.

[One Degree]

Agent Steel wrote:
9. They testified to events which in ordinary circumstances we would regard as unlikely in the extreme

Only the people who know me, believe the events of my life. I tell them to strangers and they believe I am lying. Just because a life consists of extraordinary events, does not make it a lie.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The main case where this is true is that Augustus didn't hold a census around the time of Jesus' birth. It's hardly a vital part of the narrative though, since it is mainly designed to explain how Joseph and Mary came to be in Bethlehem.

A lot of this depends on how strictly we understand Luke's point on this; there clearly was a census of some kind.

https://crossexamined.org/really-census ... -augustus/

[Victoribus Spolia]

Ultimately, my faith does not rest on whatever debate historical scholars are currently having. There was a time, not that long ago, that historians said the bible was a bunch of bullshit because the hittites mentioned in Scripture did not exist in the historical record........then they discovered the Hittites and shut their mouths on that point....

archaeology is not a fixed system like logic, philosophy, theology, etc., it is always making new discoveries and is subject to widely varying interpretation and hypothetical reconstructions of events and dates, the methodological assumptions, technologies involved, etc., all play their parts and so I am very skeptical of taking a lack of a independent paper-trail as proof of anything.

The Word of God is true on the grounds of its own efficacy and of the necessity of the One who founded that faith. The details of textual criticism and archaeological verification don't even qualify as secondary concerns in my opinion. Christians are not Christians because they studied Josephus or dug up a bone in Palestine.

Most are Christians because of their upbringing in the church in exposure to the Gospel, the existential hope offered by the faith, or the rational necessity for the existence of God, but even on this last point, no one was ever converted by losing an argument.

[Zamuel]

Only the people who know me, believe the events of my life. I tell them to strangers and they believe I am lying. Just because a life consists of extraordinary events, does not make it a lie.

I understand (except for the part where you told them.) The theme here isn't that the gospels are lies, but that there are legitimate reasons to doubt the "extraordinary events" they relate.

I think that they are second (or third) hand embellishments, poorly understood by primitive minds seeking to explain the inexplicable. What tales do you think they might have evolved if exposed to something as mundane as a flashlight? Belief in "ancient mysteries", by todays standards, is aberrant behavior.

Zam

[One Degree]

I understand (except for the part where you told them.) The theme here isn't that the gospels are lies, but that there are legitimate reasons to doubt the "extraordinary events" they relate.

I think that they are second (or third) hand embellishments, poorly understood by primitive minds seeking to explain the inexplicable. What tales do you think they might have evolved if exposed to something as mundane as a flashlight? Belief in "ancient mysteries", by todays standards, is aberrant behavior.

Zam

Well, I can’t argue with that since we often even embellish first hand. We are still left with ‘not knowing’ rather than proving it is not true.

[Saeko]

Yes I do. Science imposes very high standards of proof before we can say that something is definitely true. Asserting that the sun will rise tomorrow morning is not one of those things. After all, the sun might go nova during the night, in which case it will not 'rise' the next morning. That possibility cannot be ruled out. You should look up 'inductive reasoning' on Wikipedia.

Given what we know of stellar dynamics, there is no chance whatsoever that it will go nova tomorrow.

[Potemkin]

Given what we know of stellar dynamics, there is no chance whatsoever that it will go nova tomorrow.

But how do we 'know' what we know about stellar dynamics? By observation and by constructing abstract theories which we believe are consistent with those observations. But this is still just inductive reasoning from a long series of observations. No matter how long that series of observations happens to be, we can never achieve certainty.

[Rancid]

fallacious

Why are we talking about fellatio?

[Zamuel]

Well, I can’t argue with that since we often even embellish first hand. We are still left with ‘not knowing’ rather than proving it is not true.

Let me draw a fine line that I think you are capable of comprehending. You're right, we can't prove it is not true ... what we can prove is that it is not "Truth." I don't doubt that in it's original iteration, something happened to inspire later generations to enshrine the event. But look at the myriad of thought and opinion present on this little postage stamp called Pofo ... would you trust anyone here to record and propagate such an event - accurately?

Millions of people rely on the "Truth" as interpreted by self interested priests and religions for centuries. Terrible atrocities have been committed over disputes about the "Truth." Rabid believers still riot against modern "heresies." You don't have to look further than Nicaea to find the self serving motivation behind Christianity, or further than the "Sunni vs Shia" split in Islam to recognize that these teachings are human derived and not divine.

Only when people rely on their own experience of "Truth" and reject false prophets can they experience the reality Christ gifted us with.

Zam

[annatar1914]

Ultimately, my faith does not rest on whatever debate historical scholars are currently having. There was a time, not that long ago, that historians said the bible was a bunch of bullshit because the hittites mentioned in Scripture did not exist in the historical record........then they discovered the Hittites and shut their mouths on that point....

archaeology is not a fixed system like logic, philosophy, theology, etc., it is always making new discoveries and is subject to widely varying interpretation and hypothetical reconstructions of events and dates, the methodological assumptions, technologies involved, etc., all play their parts and so I am very skeptical of taking a lack of a independent paper-trail as proof of anything.

The Word of God is true on the grounds of its own efficacy and of the necessity of the One who founded that faith. The details of textual criticism and archaeological verification don't even qualify as secondary concerns in my opinion. Christians are not Christians because they studied Josephus or dug up a bone in Palestine.

Most are Christians because of their upbringing in the church in exposure to the Gospel, the existential hope offered by the faith, or the rational necessity for the existence of God, but even on this last point, no one was ever converted by losing an argument.

One either has the grace of Faith by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within and everything makes some sort of sense in this life, or one has not Faith and nothing makes sense and one searches all over for meaning in the things that are made and not the Maker. On that basis I accept what Jesus of Nazareth said about Reality, that He is God and proved it by His Resurrection. So therefore I reject the modern heresies of evolution and all that, accept the Flood and the literal accounts of Scripture, including Creation, because He believed in them too, and said as much. Being the Truth, what He said about truth means it is believable also... Which is why it came under attack, to try and undermine His credibility.

I know that means ridicule and hatred against me, but no servant is greater than His Master, for they ridiculed and hated Him, enough to crucify the Lord of Glory.