Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[amb]

Using the bible to defend anything is like asking an inmate at a psychiatric ward if he/she has seen Napoleon Bonaparte lately.

 

[phelix]

Using the bible to defend anything is like asking an inmate at a psychiatric ward if he/she has seen Napoleon Bonaparte lately.

Not really. It's more like asking numerous inmates at psychiatric wards about the details concerning other inmates. You will get a lot of inaccuracy, alongside some likely truths.

 

[phelix]

We can't use other books of the NT to confirm the truth of the NT - that would be like looking at the scene of Harold's journey to Normandy in the Bayeaux Tapestry and using it to confirm the historicity of Harold rescuing soldiers from quicksand. What we can use are other sources of information about the events surrounding the Battle, for example the works of Orderic Vitalis or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. If we can get broad agreement, we can say that these events did happen. What we can't say is that if something is in the Tapestry and in no other source, that event (for example Alfgytha's appearance) is likely. It might have happened, it might be pure invention, or it might be something allegorical which has since lost meaning.

You're honestly losing me a bit with this Bayeaux Tapestry business, but I'll try to engage. You've said that multiple sources of information makes something more likely. Why does this rule not apply to the books of the NT? It has been claimed above that they all had an initial, common, single source of fiction, but there are no clues as to this being the case, and it does require quite a big leap of faith. If the one-faked-source model is to be given weight, then could it not be given weight for the Orderic Vitalis and Anglo-Saxon Chronicles?
Additionally, an issue in saying Alfgytha (horrible name) was likely there is that this brings about questions regarding his omission from the other sources does it not? This would not be a problem when deducing certain things from the bible, so long as those things are unimportant enough.
Finally, I have not solely used the books of the NT, but I am arguing that there are times when information solely contained in the NT is good enough. Otherwise what is the point at all? If we will only accept the points on which the books of the NT gives us information backed up by other historical sources, we may as well just say from the outset that we are going to disregard everything the authors of the NT have to say, without obvious reason for doing so.

Might have, likely and probable are not enough for evidence of truth.

Correct, they are conclusions, which similar historical evidence invariably leads us to.

 

[The Don]

I've covered the parallels with fiction already. As for key points, it really depends what you consider to be "key". The claims you have brought up are theological ones, which can never be validated by history as historians are not permitted to draw on the supernatural. Thus it is paramount that a distinction is drawn between the historical importance and the theological one. It may well be that the NT gives us more accurate historical information concerning John the Baptist than it does concerning Jesus, even though he isn't the centre of attention at all..

The title of the thread is Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth. The central claims for the early books of the New Testament seem to be

• Child born of virgin birth
• Child is son of God
• Man performs miracles
• Man is very important indeed
• Man is executed and comes back to life

None of this appears to be supported by independent sources.

BTW, is there strong evidence for John the Baptist ?

What are the key claims of our sources for Mohammed? Him being God's messenger? Him flying to Mecca on a winged horse? No. From a historical point of view it would more likely be the battles he fought in. They would (I'm guessing here) find some of the battle accounts to be likely, some to have been exaggerated, and some to be unlikely. But the theological baggage isn't what historians are concerned with.

You're right, trying to find historical accuracy in an account like the bible is like peeling an onion.

Certain aspects (such as the existence of a place called Jerusalem) can be easily verified.

Certain aspects (such as the literal truth of the flood myth) can be easily disproved (although not beyond dogmatic doubt)

It seems to be difficult to find any support for anything other than the most banal facts in the New Testament from unbiased external sources. This includes even the existence of Jesus, never mind the extraordinary parentage he claimed of the miracles he is supposed to have performed

 

[The Don]

Finally, I have not solely used the books of the NT, but I am arguing that there are times when information solely contained in the NT is good enough. Otherwise what is the point at all?

All you are claiming in that case is that a work of fiction can be internally consistent. I don't think you'll find too many arguments there but I think there are cases where they aren't even consistent.

If we will only accept the points on which the books of the NT gives us information backed up by other historical sources, we may as well just say from the outset that we are going to disregard everything the authors of the NT have to say, without obvious reason for doing so.

The purpose of the thread is to provide evidence that the New Testament is factually accurate. If it agrees with other sources then it is more likely (although not certain - they could both have come from the same inaccurate source) that they are correct. If they are further backed by archaeological evidence then so much the better.

The reason why the New Testament isn't a good source of historically accurate information is that it is a very partial account with a particular viewpoint to promote. It's like asking me about Middlesbrough Football Club.

The partiality of the New Testament gives ample reason to reject it as an accurate source without external verification.

 

[amb]

Not really. It's more like asking numerous inmates at psychiatric wards about the details concerning other inmates. You will get a lot of inaccuracy, alongside some likely truths.

Watching a movie shot on location also has many truths about the location. But the movie, unless based on real life events would be pure fiction.

 

[phelix]

The title of the thread is Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth. The central claims for the early books of the New Testament seem to be

• Child born of virgin birth
• Child is son of God
• Man performs miracles
• Man is very important indeed
• Man is executed and comes back to life

None of this appears to be supported by independent sources.

This seems a very odd thing to point out. It's like me saying my issue with the Roswell autopsy video is that it isn't timestamped. Even with independent sources for all of the claims you have listed, they would still all be almost definitely wrong, apart from "Man is very important indeed" which is a bit vague. He was important enough to lead a cult, but not important enough that non-christians bothered writing about him apart from, perhaps, the couple of less frequently disputed lines in Josephus.

BTW, is there strong evidence for John the Baptist ?

Depends what you consider to be strong evidence really. He is covered in the four gospels, and a single paragraph by Josephus. I do not recall Paul mentioning him, but I might be wrong on that.

You're right, trying to find historical accuracy in an account like the bible is like peeling an onion.

Certain aspects (such as the existence of a place called Jerusalem) can be easily verified.

Certain aspects (such as the literal truth of the flood myth) can be easily disproved (although not beyond dogmatic doubt)

It seems to be difficult to find any support for anything other than the most banal facts in the New Testament from unbiased external sources. This includes even the existence of Jesus, never mind the extraordinary parentage he claimed of the miracles he is supposed to have performed

It is impossible to find any support for anything from "unbiased" external sources. The historians at the time made up things like nobody's business, and frequently took sides. In the above mentioned paragraph on John the Baptist, Josephus clearly likes John a lot, and reckons that he could have provided salvation for Herod. With Josephus, as with Luke, there is a lot of bias towards certain people, so some degree of historical reasoning is needed to determine what is likely true and what is likely untrue. There is no such thing as an unbiased account.

 

[The Don]

This seems a very odd thing to point out. It's like me saying my issue with the Roswell autopsy video is that it isn't timestamped. Even with independent sources for all of the claims you have listed, they would still all be almost definitely wrong, apart from "Man is very important indeed" which is a bit vague. He was important enough to lead a cult, but not important enough that non-christians bothered writing about him apart from, perhaps, the couple of less frequently disputed lines in Josephus.

If someone is executing miracles, he may appear in contemporary accounts (as opposed to pieces of a book whose sole intention is to promote a particular religion that was written 50-200 years later). Maybe something in contemporary Roman, Egyptian, Jewish or Syrian about some guy feeding 5000 people (which was probably a VERY large crowd at the time).

Depends what you consider to be strong evidence really. He is covered in the four gospels, and a single paragraph by Josephus. I do not recall Paul mentioning him, but I might be wrong on that.

The gospels are not a reliable source because their purpose is to promote a particular viewpoint. There may be some truth in them, in the same way that there is some truth in an actor's self-penned biography. I would never trust an uncorroborated statement from Paris Hilton's website.

It is impossible to find any support for anything from "unbiased" external sources. The historians at the time made up things like nobody's business, and frequently took sides. In the above mentioned paragraph on John the Baptist, Josephus clearly likes John a lot, and reckons that he could have provided salvation for Herod. With Josephus, as with Luke, there is a lot of bias towards certain people, so some degree of historical reasoning is needed to determine what is likely true and what is likely untrue. There is no such thing as an unbiased account.

If you can find contemporary administrative records from the Roman empire to corroborate the facts then at least you have an external source.

If you can find a range of accounts from different that corroborate then as you've pointed out they likely either are sourced from the same lie or from the truth. Analysing the sources may be able to determine which of these may be true.

Finding some archaeological evidence may be nice.

 

[phelix]

All you are claiming in that case is that a work of fiction can be internally consistent. I don't think you'll find too many arguments there but I think there are cases where they aren't even consistent.

I wasn't claiming internal consistency, but rather the presence of likely historical truth which cannot be verified by non-NT sources. It is actually the lack of consistency which brings the most interest for historians, as a discrepancy or contradiction massively reduces the possible ways a certain story emerged. I was trying to build on the position that the NT contains a number of sources with potential historical value.

The purpose of the thread is to provide evidence that the New Testament is factually accurate. If it agrees with other sources then it is more likely (although not certain - they could both have come from the same inaccurate source) that they are correct. If they are further backed by archaeological evidence then so much the better.

The reason why the New Testament isn't a good source of historically accurate information is that it is a very partial account with a particular viewpoint to promote. It's like asking me about Middlesbrough Football Club.

The partiality of the New Testament gives ample reason to reject it as an accurate source without external verification.

Yup, if I asked you to give an account of Middlesbrough Football Club, this would constitute a partial account with potentially accurate information. If I asked numerous Boro fans to give accounts we'd get more of this, and could perform some sort of historical analysis, sifting the implausible cross-source claims (Boro are a decent team) from the possible but hard to tell claims (many sources say they once finished 3rd but others leave that out) from the more likely claims (all sources agree the club was founded in the 19th century, even though some say God was involved, and others claim this to be the inspiration for Gandhi).

 

[carlitos]

You stated earlier that the historical method doesn't work for fiction. How did you determine that the gospels weren't fiction, so that you could start using the historical method? This is circular logic.

I've covered the parallels with fiction already.

No, you haven't.

As for key points, it really depends what you consider to be "key".

See the end of this posting.

We can find numerous times when the various books in the NT are likely to have been correct, owing to other books in the NT, and sources from outside it.

Do tell.

The thing is that isn't always especially productive, as only fairly unimportant bits can be verified (the existence of John, the status of Felix and Festus as procurators). I have talked about this to some extent, but it's mostly fruitless as the likely truths are already garnered from Roman governmental sources.

Yeah, I heard that the Romans wrote a lot of stuff down. Please elaborate. What did they say about this Jesus character?

For Lord of the Rings, there is not cross-source agreement or a presentation of history. On the cross-source agreement bit, the counterargument has been that there are multiple LOTR fanfictions, and if the original was lost what we would be left with is something resembling the new testament. There is no real need to make this leap, and it does seem to require that the only remaining fanfictions are ones written pretending to be historical, or ones written by people who believed the original LOTR was correct.

Additionally, the composition of the different gospels suggests a number of sources (see the synoptic problem) with John and Paul completely separate. This would require quite a bit of intellectual gymnastics to fit the one source model being proposed.

Actually, there is "cross-source agreement" and a "presentation of history" in Lord of the Rings (and millions of other fictional works). You're just pretending that there isn't.

I've said. I do not "rule them out". They are possible. It's just that they create unnecessary strains on reasonableness.

You don't rule out the possibility that the gospels are fiction, and you are lecturing me in a thread about "evidence?" Bizarre.

I consider it special pleading because the possibility of every source being faked (or based on fakes) is not one that would be given so much mental airtime in other cases.

I gave you a link to a write-up on special pleading. Give it a read sometime. The phrase that has a specific, logical meaning, and you are not using it correctly.

• Child born of virgin birth
• Child is son of God
• Man performs miracles
• Man is very important indeed
• Man is executed and comes back to life

This seems a very odd thing to point out. <snip>

In a thread about the truth of the New Testament, it seems odd to point out the central plot points? Again, I feel compelled to ask you - are you doing some type of performance art here?

 

[The Don]

I wasn't claiming internal consistency, but rather the presence of likely historical truth which cannot be verified by non-NT sources. It is actually the lack of consistency which brings the most interest for historians, as a discrepancy or contradiction massively reduces the possible ways a certain story emerged. I was trying to build on the position that the NT contains a number of sources with potential historical value.

The position is not necessarily a strong one though, especially when the purpose (and history of editing) of the New Testament is taken into account. The New Testament is a propaganda exercise for a religious cult.

A factual truth would only be allowed to persist if it didn't contradict the message being pushed.

Yup, if I asked you to give an account of Middlesbrough Football Club, this would constitute a partial account with potentially accurate information. If I asked numerous Boro fans to give accounts we'd get more of this, and could perform some sort of historical analysis, sifting the implausible cross-source claims (Boro are a decent team) from the possible but hard to tell claims (many sources say they once finished 3rd but others leave that out) from the more likely claims (all sources agree the club was founded in the 19th century, even though some say God was involved, and others claim this to be the inspiration for Gandhi).

And that's where my analogy breaks down. Part of the schtick for a religious cult is to have a core message into which initiates are indoctrinated. There isn't a similar process to create the myth of Boro's great victory in the 1932 FA Cup final but if there were then Boro fans would all insist that it did happen and you may find differing accounts due to different embellishments in the storytelling.

 

[phelix]

If someone is executing miracles, he may appear in contemporary accounts (as opposed to pieces of a book whose sole intention is to promote a particular religion that was written 50-200 years later). Maybe something in contemporary Roman, Egyptian, Jewish or Syrian about some guy feeding 5000 people (which was probably a VERY large crowd at the time).

Yes, this is a good reason to believe that the miracle accounts are incorrect. A better reason, of course, is that they contradict the laws of physics. But any reason is good

The gospels are not a reliable source because their purpose is to promote a particular viewpoint. There may be some truth in them, in the same way that there is some truth in an actor's self-penned biography. I would never trust an uncorroborated statement from Paris Hilton's website.

Yup. That's a pretty good parallel. It would depend what the statement was though. If I go on Paris Hilton's website and see "Just back from Spain, got a nice tan" I think it's fair to conclude that she has been on holiday. There is a possibility she didn't get tanned at all but just said that for PR. There is a small but still not unbelievable possibility that she wasn't in Spain, but rather a Spanish speaking country. It seems unlikely that she just made the whole thing up.

If you can find contemporary administrative records from the Roman empire to corroborate the facts then at least you have an external source.

If you can find a range of accounts from different that corroborate then as you've pointed out they likely either are sourced from the same lie or from the truth. Analysing the sources may be able to determine which of these may be true.

Finding some archaeological evidence may be nice.

Archaeological evidence is a tough request, especially given the level of poverty. You'd also need a namestamp, so the only thing I could think of that we have even the slightest chance of finding would be a tomb etching. And when I say slightest chance I really mean no chance at all. I bet you there's been a good few "forging for Jesus" versions though.

As for analysing the sources, we have done this probably more than anything else in history with the bible. Most scholars say there's Mark,Q,L,M,John and Paul, and that all these are independent. There are quibbles over Q. I don't find it at all likely, or even feasible, that these sources all developed from 1 fake. There doesn't seem to be a good argument for it, and it requires a greater leap of faith than is really warranted.

 

[phelix]

Yargh! email inbox flooded with 72 emails. Did everyone else manage to stay afloat?

Anyhow...

No, you haven't.

(in relation to dealing with the NT-as-fiction implications)
I have. The suggested method of getting around having to invoke conspiracy (as a couple of christ myth authors do) is to have all the independent sources (I don't mean the books here) sharing a single faked source themselves. There is not really any good argument for believing this. The single-faked-source model is an unwarranted leap of faith, and opens up more problems than the mainstream historical models.

Do tell.

(in relation to use of sources outside the NT)
Sources from outside the NT I have used in reference to John the Baptist's life outline (Josephus) and particulars concerning the early church's relation to authority as described in Acts (Roman official records)

Yeah, I heard that the Romans wrote a lot of stuff down. Please elaborate. What did they say about this Jesus character?

They wrote nothing about Jesus, as far as we currently know. They wrote nothing about John the Baptist either, even though Herod ordered his death. They weren't especially concerned with minor Jewish cult leaders.

Actually, there is "cross-source agreement" and a "presentation of history" in Lord of the Rings (and millions of other fictional works). You're just pretending that there isn't.

There is not a presentation of history in LOTR. The first line is "When Mr Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton". The book is a narrative, but this doesn't qualify as a presentation of history.
As for cross-source agreement, what exactly are you referring to? Is it the idea someone else has proposed that there are numerous LOTR fanfics, some of which written with a more fake-history bent, and if we just take those and ignore the original we would have something resembling the NT? Or is it that LOTR is written in three sections, and has a prequel as well?

You don't rule out the possibility that the gospels are fiction, and you are lecturing me in a thread about "evidence?" Bizarre.

What is your point there? I do not rule out the possibility. Neither do you. This has nothing to do with evidence, but rather the fact that any evidence presented will always have the chance of being wrong.

In a thread about the truth of the New Testament, it seems odd to point out the central plot points? Again, I feel compelled to ask you - are you doing some type of performance art here?

You have misquoted there, possibly deliberately. Bad show. You snipped out the line "None of this appears to be supported by independent sources." which is what I was responding to.

 

[The Don]

Yes, this is a good reason to believe that the miracle accounts are incorrect. A better reason, of course, is that they contradict the laws of physics. But any reason is good

So there are many occasions where we know the NT isn't reliable and yet you're asking us to consider it reliable in other cases. Given some of the whackiness that's in there, I'd consider it unreliable unless proven otherwise.

A gathering of 5,000 would have been a big deal back then (catering provisions notwithstanding). Maybe there's some kind of account in the administrative record of a significant number of people attending a meeting of a charismatic person claiming to be the messiah.

Yup. That's a pretty good parallel. It would depend what the statement was though. If I go on Paris Hilton's website and see "Just back from Spain, got a nice tan" I think it's fair to conclude that she has been on holiday. There is a possibility she didn't get tanned at all but just said that for PR. There is a small but still not unbelievable possibility that she wasn't in Spain, but rather a Spanish speaking country. It seems unlikely that she just made the whole thing up.

The primary purpose of the Paris Hilton website is to big up Paris Hilton. The primary purpose of the New Testament is to big up the (then) new cult of Christianity. The only truth that survives is that which is on message.

Archaeological evidence is a tough request, especially given the level of poverty. You'd also need a namestamp, so the only thing I could think of that we have even the slightest chance of finding would be a tomb etching. And when I say slightest chance I really mean no chance at all. I bet you there's been a good few "forging for Jesus" versions though.

Yes, I suppose the only chance would be to unearth some new administrative records from Rome, Egypt, Syria or wherever.

The fact that corroborating sources aren't available doesn't make the current sources any more reliable.

As for analysing the sources, we have done this probably more than anything else in history with the bible. Most scholars say there's Mark,Q,L,M,John and Paul, and that all these are independent. There are quibbles over Q. I don't find it at all likely, or even feasible, that these sources all developed from 1 fake. There doesn't seem to be a good argument for it, and it requires a greater leap of faith than is really warranted.

The gospels were written 50-200 years after the event by cult members. Prior to that, presumably the stories were passed on orally. Mrs Don and I cannot agree on the details of an episode of Spiral (Engrenages) we watched last night. The fact that we have two accounts which are somewhat similar but different in key details doesn't mean that:

a) they didn't have the same source
b) that source is factually true

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Not really. It's more like asking numerous inmates at psychiatric wards about the details concerning other inmates. You will get a lot of inaccuracy, alongside some likely truths.

And what you have been asked for dozens of times is how do you tell them apart?

Yes, this is a good reason to believe that the miracle accounts are incorrect. A better reason, of course, is that they contradict the laws of physics. But any reason is good

Actually that's BS as well. Audri Santos is considered a modern day saint who cured people and made statues of jesus cry. Sure, we know it's a fake, but your method exclude her entirely from history.

Just because someone reported a miracle doesn't mean the event never happened. It quite possibly happened with mundane explanations.

Yup. That's a pretty good parallel. It would depend what the statement was though. If I go on Paris Hilton's website and see "Just back from Spain, got a nice tan" I think it's fair to conclude that she has been on holiday. There is a possibility she didn't get tanned at all but just said that for PR. There is a small but still not unbelievable possibility that she wasn't in Spain, but rather a Spanish speaking country. It seems unlikely that she just made the whole thing up.

If you think Paris Hilton may have forged something on her website, how on earth can you possibly take anything in a religious text into acccount?

Do you think stuff are "likely" to be true in the Book of Mormon? Dyanetics? What the Bleep do we know?

Every known religious text has been filled with lies, falsehoods and delusions that are not based on reality. Therefore, the likely even is that they should NOT be taken into account.

If you wish to claim that something is "likely" you do realize that it too requires evidence, right?

As for analysing the sources, we have done this probably more than anything else in history with the bible. Most scholars say there's Mark,Q,L,M,John and Paul, and that all these are independent. There are quibbles over Q. I don't find it at all likely, or even feasible, that these sources all developed from 1 fake. There doesn't seem to be a good argument for it, and it requires a greater leap of faith than is really warranted.

Again, this statement requires evidence. Do you have any?

What you randomly say that sounds better or worst to you is completely irelavent and is the very definition of faith.

 

[carlitos]

phelix, I apologize for the mis-quote there, where I mis-read your comment. I'll just leave the rest, rather than repeat it. I agree with the following sentiment (sans typos). You're still cherry-picking.

What you randomly say that sounds better or worse to you is completely irrelevant and is the very definition of faith.

 

[phelix]

So there are many occasions where we know the NT isn't reliable and yet you're asking us to consider it reliable in other cases. Given some of the whackiness that's in there, I'd consider it unreliable unless proven otherwise.

A gathering of 5,000 would have been a big deal back then (catering provisions notwithstanding). Maybe there's some kind of account in the administrative record of a significant number of people attending a meeting of a charismatic person claiming to be the messiah.

I don't think we can gather any truth from that story at all. As you said, a meeting of 5,000 people would have been impressive in itself, so the number is exaggerated. Naturally there wasn't a food miracle, but even a non-miracle seems implausible.
I'm not asking you to consider the NT "reliable" for anything. There isn't a single story that I would point to and say "that probably happened. The NT says it". What I am saying is that certain truth can be extracted from the sources found in the NT, just as it could from the sources for any other lore.

The primary purpose of the Paris Hilton website is to big up Paris Hilton. The primary purpose of the New Testament is to big up the (then) new cult of Christianity. The only truth that survives is that which is on message.

And that which is unimportant surely? Also, on-message truth can still be truth, it's just harder to find good arguments for the pro-jesus stuff because there is a clear motive for exaggeration and fabrication.

Yes, I suppose the only chance would be to unearth some new administrative records from Rome, Egypt, Syria or wherever.

The fact that corroborating sources aren't available doesn't make the current sources any more reliable.

Correct. It just means that's all we have to work with a lot of the time.

The gospels were written 50-200 years after the event by cult members. Prior to that, presumably the stories were passed on orally.

Correct apart from your latter dating. The absolute latest dating for the gospels is early second century, when they start getting cited by the church fathers. Nobody actually argues for that dating either, as the gospels would have needed to have become circulated to a degree, we need a decent amount of time between Mark and Luke, and the development of theology within the books can be compared with the other sources to give us a better dating. The gospels would have been written 30-80 years after the death of Jesus. This is very very good compared to most sources from ancient history.

 

[phelix]

And what you have been asked for dozens of times is how do you tell them apart?

As I have said. You see what comes up a lot. Check whether it's plausible. Ask what the reason might be for it having been said. The large number of factors involved mean that arguments would often be made on a case by case basis.

Actually that's BS as well. Audri Santos is considered a modern day saint who cured people and made statues of jesus cry. Sure, we know it's a fake, but your method exclude her entirely from history.
Just because someone reported a miracle doesn't mean the event never happened. It quite possibly happened with mundane explanations.

It does mean that the miracle never happened. The historical method wouldn't exclude her from history... I mean I've been defending the non-exclusion of Jesus from history so this doesn't square very well. In this particular case, it is indeed possible that there's a mundane explanation. This is also possible for the numerous miracle accounts of Jesus. This, and the fact that the account supports the narrative and author's theology, means that we cannot say with any real confidence how the accounts started out.
I'm sure you'd be happy to just say "the miracles didn't happen" and leave it there?

If you think Paris Hilton may have forged something on her website, how on earth can you possibly take anything in a religious text into acccount?

Because history is not a case of definitively ruling out possibilities, but rather seeing which the evidence supports, and giving it more weight than the others.

Do you think stuff are "likely" to be true in the Book of Mormon? Dyanetics? What the Bleep do we know?

I've not read any of these books. It depends on how they were written, what their intent was, etc. There is stuff likely to be true in the Koran or Hadith though, or in a devout Mormon's biography of Joseph Smith.

Every known religious text has been filled with lies, falsehoods and delusions that are not based on reality. Therefore, the likely even is that they should NOT be taken into account.

You could extend that to every narrative text full stop.

Again, this statement requires evidence. Do you have any?

What you randomly say that sounds better or worst to you is completely irelavent and is the very definition of faith.

Which claim was it that you want evidence for? Do you not consider it a leap of faith to believe that the 5/6 sources listed originate from one single fake historical text, when there is no good reason to believe this?

 

[phelix]

phelix, I apologize for the mis-quote there, where I mis-read your comment. I'll just leave the rest, rather than repeat it. I agree with the following sentiment (sans typos). You're still cherry-picking.

Howso am I cherry-picking? I have acknowledged everything from the likely historical info on John the Baptist to the likely incorrect accounts of the resurrection, and I have given my reasons why I, along with much of modern academia, have come to these sorts of conclusions, and I have noted when some scholarship disagrees with my position...
Edit: no hard feelings on the misquote

 

[carlitos]

deleted.