Wootah wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:38 pm
benchwarmer wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:32 pmThis always seems to lead to the same type of apologetic "Well, how do you know Julius Caesar was real?!". The appropriate answer, of course, is that we don't know with 100% certainty, but all written and other physical evidence seems to corroborate the claim.
All Christians ask is that you apply the same standard to historical evidence for Jesus and the Bible.
I'm sure that some do, but most don't.
When scholars make a good-faith attempt to treat the New Testament according to the same standard as other ancient texts, we get what is now the academic consensus: Jesus was a real guy that was executed by the Romans and stayed dead. When we try to evaluate the New Testament as historical evidence, we can barely leave the gate before we're beset by Christian apologists admonishing us against "dismissing supernaturalism" and explaining how, despite the little evidence that we have for Caesar or Plato, we fervenly believe in the existence of each.
If a Christian is willing to present a reasoned argument for which parts of the Bible
should not be considered good historical evidence, then I'll treat that as at least a show of good faith. I'd even accept a discussion in which we're asked for more credulity in the overall treatment of the supernatural in ancient documents. It's not a direction I'd personally move in, but that at least shows a consistency. In practice, I have precious few discussions with believing Christians that argue for both Jesus and Caesar having similar births, either
both of a virgin or
neither of a virgin.
So, where do you lie? Do you think based on the evidence that there were no virgin births in antiquity, a solitary virgin birth, or that there were many such? The extremes of "none" and "many" can at least plausibly arise from applying the "same standard to historical evidence" across many cases, but if you find yourself arguing for only Jesus, you
may be applying a bit of a double standard instead.