How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[2ndpillar2]

I suggest that you use the book used by Yeshua if you want to get to the foundational truth. Yeshua brought light to the original scriptures, which the "Christian" church has mostly nailed to a cross, and now think they are saved. But "saved" from what? They will all die, regardless of what their false prophet Paul might have preached, and which his minions have expanded upon.

I have no problem the Hebrew scriptures are considered canonical. From your answer, you imply only the Hebrew scriptures are canonical. Are there any NT books you consider authoritative?

But, you also seem to imply you believe in Jesus Christ. If so, on what basis do you believe in him? That is, how do you know what Jesus has said or done?

There was no one in the 1st century called "Jesus Christ". The name "Jesus" didn't exist until around the 17th century, and when pronounced, means "earth pig" in Latin. According to your "Hebrew scriptures" (Jeremiah 8:8), the "scribes"/Pharisees have made the law of the Hebrew scriptures into a lie (Talmud & NT). With respect to the NT, versus Hebrew scriptures, their foundational integrity is less clear, and according to the NT commentary of Revelation 22:18-20, it can also be corrupted. One can agree with the Koran, that the book of the Jews, the "Hebrew scriptures" is from God, which is also a common belief among "Christians", whether they believe it or think it has been nailed to a cross, as indicated by the self-professed apostle Paul (John 5:31). It hasn't been nailed to the cross, for I have a copy on my desk. Yeshua came as a light to reveal what the "Hebrew scriptures", the Law and the prophets, mean, whether one believes that or not. Looking at the Law and the prophets through the lens provided by Yeshua, you can come to an understanding of the message within. Once you have that understanding, the only role of the son of man remains to come back and fulfill its message, as shown in Ezekiel 37:24-28, which is to be placed by the "Lord God" as king/prince/shepherd (Ezekiel 34:23-24) over Israel, the combined tribes of Judah and Ephraim. He is not coming to save the "tares", the "wicked", "those who commit lawlessness, because he comes after the great tribulation, according to your NT Matthew 24:29, along with Jeremiah 16:15-21, whereas in the "day of distress", as in the day that the nations will be destroyed, the Lord's Day (Joel 2:31-32 & Jeremiah 30:11). As for the NT, any book written by the false prophet Paul or his minions/brothers, would be suspect more than any others. Zechariah 11:12-13 gives credibility that the LORD appointed Judas Iscariot to be a shepherd for a particular reason, based around 30 pieces of silver, but the other two "shepherds" of Zechariah 11, were chosen to pasture the "flock doomed for slaughter" (Zechariah 11:10), those two shepherds being Peter and Paul. Those would be the two shepherds the "Christian" community follow. The protestants, more the followers of Paul, versus the Roman church more so followers of Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17, who according to their NT was called "Satan" and a "stumbling block to me" (Matthew 16:19) by Yeshua.

[TRANSPONDER]

Liquiescent (I seem unable to spell anything these days ) rock is the mechanism of tectonic plate movement. That (not flood water) is what causes the mountains and faults.

Definition of liquescent:
"being or tending to become liquid : MELTING"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liquescent

We've both agreed the mantle is solid rock. Again, it is ad hoc to say that even though it is solid rock, but it acts like a liquid.

Of course the Flood theory doesn't posit millions of years. That's the problem. Thousands of years is not really enough to allow the rock strata to be folded over like they were soft (any argument that they were heat - soft works less well if they are being caused by cold flood water) never mind a year or two as in the Bible.

The folding was on the order of days/weeks in the FM. There's no problem with that if the sediments were soft, and there's a proposed mechanism for the folding, and it fits the sedimentary pattern.

But I can't grasp how the water moved the hydroplate which had either expelled the flood water into the air or (more feasible) collapsed to expose the water as a 'Flood'.

When the crust split, it created the oceanic ridges. Brown says the ridges formed by the weight of the crust pushing down and then forming the ridges. I believe instead the ridges were formed by the negative water pressure gushing out of the split in the crust, like a giant vacuum cleaner sucking the floor and pulling everything up. There were two forces causing horizontal movement of the crust - the water coming out of the splits and the tilt of the oceanic ridge.

I can't see any mechanism other than tectonic plate movement that would then cause the strata to buckle as mountains. Flood water above the basalt would just lie there or surge about if there was a storm. I can't see any mechanism other than tectonic plate movement that would then cause the strata to buckle as mountains.

As the hydroplate eventually hit the underlaying basalt layer when all the subterranean water was gone, it stopped the horizontal movement of the hydroplate. But, the sedimentary layers on top of the hydroplate kept moving due to momentum. It is at this point the sedimentary layers buckled and formed the mountains. Think of it as a pile of rocks on a rail car. The rail car is the hydroplate and the pile of rocks is the sedimentary layers. Then the rail car loses its wheels and grinds to a stop on the railroad tracks. But the rocks on top of the rail car would fly off the rail car.

Rather it supports the idea that water is a common element in the universe and is an integral part of planet -formation.

Then it's no problem to posit a huge underground water reservoir prior to the global flood.

But the tilting of the unconformity is below the flood - caused unconformity. You see the problem? You are trying to cram two geological events divided by this unconformity into ine event of a couple of years.

The two events are the two splits of the crust west and east of the Americas. The west split resulted in the supergroup. The east split resulted in the layers above that.

Mesas and buttes whether on land or water will deposit the eroded material in flat layers (strata). I have already explained that this is observed in real time today. It happens. it is not some guesswork explanation.

The question is what caused the flat erosion in Monument valley. Yes, deposits formed the original strata (which the mesas/buttes originally were part of). But some erosion happened after all the layers were deposited that caused the vast flat areas and the occasional mesas/buttes that we see now. Note, this type of pattern only exists in a few areas in the country. And the FM as well can reliably predict where these areas should be.

The standard model says it's caused by collision with tectonic plates under the sea (or on land in the Himalayas, for instance) but how does a flood on top of the lands it is stratifying cause continental plates to collide especially if they are moving apart?

Mountain formation is by the momentum of the sedimentary strata buckling as explained above.

For the Himalayas, what do you mean by "on land"?

"Scientists have long speculated that water is trapped in a rocky layer of the Earth's mantle located between the lower mantle and upper mantle, at depths between 250 miles and 410 miles. Jacobsen and Schmandt are the first to provide direct evidence that there may be water in this area of the mantle, known as the "transition zone," on a regional scale. The region extends across most of the interior of the United States."

So where, otseng, mate, did you get the claim that scientistys refused to believe it when hte deep drill found it. Please give your source for this grubby claim, which I do hope that you can blame on someone else.

I was just quoting what the article said, I'm not saying subterranean water cannot exist. So, your source then confirms the FM model that subterranean water can exist.

Ok. While I'm here, let's set out the analogy

Sorry, I do not see the direct correlation.

Let's go back a step. Do any of the witnesses claim Jesus did not resurrect from the dead? This is the doctrinal point of the argument.

Anything else is non-doctrinal points:
"earthquake and descending angel who frightens off the tomb -guard"
"angelic message in Matthew"
"Jesus appears and tells the Marys to tell the disciples to go to Galilee"

Even if all these non-doctrinal points were fictitious, it would not alter any core Christian beliefs.

It is not 'ad hoc'. You are again dismissing the findings of geological science as 'ad hoc'. As I posted above:

"Not only is there compelling evidence that plate movements and subductions have occurred and are still occurring, but their rate has been precisely measured, and the geologic details of the movements well mapped in places"

"It is caused by mobility of the mantle, caused I am sure by the underlying liquid or liquescent rock and not by water." The problem is with this idea that the flood water caused the tectonic plate movement. If it was above, it could not be acting as a 'lubricant' as Brown calls it. If it was below, the rock would simply sink to the bottom. There is a problem with the rolling over and inverting of the strata.If they were soft layers, they would collapse and jumble up. They have to be solid rock layers buckles over geologically long time to give the inverted if not the vertical strata that we can see.

Incidentally it was the rock beneath the mantle I am calling liquid or liquescent, so your definition was not necessary, let alone damaging to my argument.

But I can't grasp how the water moved the hydroplate which had either expelled the flood water into the air or (more feasible) collapsed to expose the water as a 'Flood'.

When the crust split, it created the oceanic ridges. Brown says the ridges formed by the weight of the crust pushing down and then forming the ridges. I believe instead the ridges were formed by the negative water pressure gushing out of the split in the crust, like a giant vacuum cleaner sucking the floor and pulling everything up. There were two forces causing horizontal movement of the crust - the water coming out of the splits and the tilt of the oceanic ridge.

The ridges do not look like a split in the (undersea) crust but an upthrust of (undersea) mountains, just as on land and caused the same way - by tectonic plate movement,. Further, both theories would imply splitting the land masses apart and not together, so the effect of pushing mountains up by two land masses coming together would not occur. This was the problem with the splitting up of Pangaea, which you said you agreed with. Also it sounds very ad hoc (not to say special pleading) to say that crust pressure caused the reservoir floor to depress while the expelled water caused a ridge. How could that result in an undersea mountain chain which incidentally looks like a mountain chain on land which is not caused by the suction of fountains but by tectonic plate movement? It is not a problem as such to postulate a large amount of water under the earth crust, but the problem is with the hydroplate theory and how it could work physically, mechanically and resulting in the geology that we see.

Further, the point about the deep water found in the deep drilling is that it is under the basal rocks (or so I understand it) so they cannot be anything to do with this supposed underground reservoir, the floor of which is presumably postulated to be the present sea floor. So your deep drilled water does hot help your Flood model at all.

"The two events are the two splits of the crust west and east of the Americas. The west split resulted in the supergroup. The east split resulted in the layers above that."

What 'splits in the crust'? If you mean the Atlantic splitting America from Africa, what is the Western split? You are calling the Pacific a 'split?' I'll have to check on the 'supergroup'. I suppose the idea is that the West action tilted the strata (as in the Unconformity) the Flood scraped it level (though why it should do that if it was descending water from a 'fountain' I can't imagine).This fountain was the size of a couple of continents or even more. Then the Eastern split laid down the flood strata (which was soft?).' A problem there is that the strata on mountains is shown to be fossil sea beds (with worm burrows in situ) so can't be flood strata laid down in a natter of days or even months. And wouldn't this put America in the middle of the fountain? Unless you suggest several underground reservoirs where the present oceans are. The problem is that the hydroplate diagram shows a reservoir expelling water as a mechanism, but doesn't relate it to the present land - masses, where the geology hardly fits the aftermath of a collapsed reservoir. It would have to collapse, or where is the roof now?) . I can't see why the 'crust pushing down'would create depressions here and leave a ridge There. The better explanation is tectonic plate movement pushing up mountains undersea - just as the Rockies, Alps or Himalayas on land - which answers your question about that.

"when all the subterranean water was gone, it stopped the horizontal movement of the hydroplate. But, the sedimentary layers on top of the hydroplate kept moving due to momentum. It is at this point the sedimentary layers buckled and formed the mountains."

This just underlines the problem with the soft - strata buckling. Your speedy formation of the geology as a sort of geological car - crash would hardly result in the regular folding of the postulated soft strata. It would be a massive jumble. And I still cannot credit how water could effectively allow land masses to skate about like rafts.

The mesas and buttes are well explained by weather erosion as well as ocean.The evidence would be whether the strata shows sea - beds or not. We can look at that if you like.

There's another point I had in mind. The Apalachians are old mountains, eroded to show the igneous rock underneath. This is evidence of old mountain formation which would have to be pre flood, as is also the case with the tilted strata below the Flood-shearing effect.

you posted "I was just quoting what the article said, I'm not saying subterranean water cannot exist So, your source then confirms the FM model that subterranean water can exist.." No. The article did NOT claim that scientists denied the existence of underground water. I pointed out that science has long suggested it could exist. So either you said scientists denied it or you got the idea from somewhere else. Which is it?

As to the analogy, I set out the correlation step by step. So I presume we can ignore that point. Just as we can dismiss points of doctrine. That is a red herring not to say strawman. The point here is witness credibility. Which to use the (agreed) analogy of a law court is what is being tested in witness testimony, not points of doctrine.

If the resurrection was shown to be ficticious, it might indeed still leave Christian Faith intact. But that would no longer be able to credibly claim that it based on a reliable report of the events.

[Difflugia]

There was no one in the 1st century called "Jesus Christ".

That's probably true. I didn't think you were a mythicist, though.

If you're not a mythicist and you think any of the Pauline epistles are genuine, then this statement is trivially false. Paul referred many, many times to Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, transliterated as "Iesous Christos" in English. Are you just narrowly referring to the hard ("affricate") English J or something? That applies to pretty much every J name in the Bible, though, and then there was never anyone called "Jeremiah," Josiah, or "Jehoshaphat," either.

The name "Jesus" didn't exist until around the 17th century, and when pronounced, means "earth pig" in Latin.

What Latin word or phrase did you have in mind? I get the "sus" part (the Linnaean name for a pig is Sus scrofa), but "earth pig" would be something like terrae sus or, more often, sus terrae ("pig of the earth"). Are you thinking of Greek γῆ ("ge")?

[2ndpillar2]

There was no one in the 1st century called "Jesus Christ".

That's probably true. I didn't think you were a mythicist, though.

If you're not a mythicist and you think any of the Pauline epistles are genuine, then this statement is trivially false. Paul referred many, many times to Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, transliterated as "Iesous Christos" in English. Are you just narrowly referring to the hard ("affricate") English J or something? That applies to pretty much every J name in the Bible, though, and then there was never anyone called "Jeremiah," Josiah, or "Jehoshaphat," either.

The name "Jesus" didn't exist until around the 17th century, and when pronounced, means "earth pig" in Latin.

What Latin word or phrase did you have in mind? I get the "sus" part (the Linnaean name for a pig is Sus scrofa), but "earth pig" would be something like terrae sus or, more often, sus terrae ("pig of the earth"). Are you thinking of Greek γῆ ("ge")?

Your problem with relying on Paul, is that he is a major "false prophet" of the "false prophets" of Matthew 7:13, and the "false prophet of Revelation 16:13. As for the word/name "Jesus", which most of the "Christian" community says one is "saved" if they believe in his name (John 1:12). His name was never "Jesus Christ", which can be interpreted as YHWY saves the anointed one, in which it may be true that God saves Yeshua, but YHWY does not save the "wicked"/"tares" (Matthew 13:49:50). The modern variant in English would be Joshua, and Yeshua in Aramaic, the language spoken by Yeshua, whose name means YHWY saves. As for your nonsense about mythicist, it is just that, nonsense.
Earth pig:
https://www.followintruth.com/does-the- ... -earth-pig
In Latin the word Jesus means Earth-Pig. The etymology of the word Jesus comes from the Latin and so Jesus means Earth Pig. Je = Ge= Earth and Sus = Pig therefore

[Difflugia]

Your problem with relying on Paul, is that he is a major "false prophet" of the "false prophets" of Matthew 7:13, and the "false prophet of Revelation 16:13.

Paul can have been the falsest of prophets, but if he wrote in the first century, then Jesus was called Jesus Christ in the first century.

Even that is immaterial. I mentioned Paul because he wrote the earliest of the New Testament writings, but three of the four Gospels refer to Jesus as "Jesus Christ." So do Hebrews, Revelation, and all of the catholic epistles. In fact, the only two New Testament books that don't refer to Jesus Christ as such are the Gospel of Luke and 3 John.

As for the word/name "Jesus", which most of the "Christian" community says one is "saved" if they believe in his name (John 1:12). His name was never "Jesus Christ", which can be interpreted as YHWY saves the anointed one, in which it may be true that God saves Yeshua, but YHWY does not save the "wicked"/"tares" (Matthew 13:49:50).

It's reasonable to conclude that if Jesus was Palestinian, then his given name was Yeshua, but we don't actually know that for sure. All we know is that the earliest extant Christian writings were composed in Greek and Jesus was called Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς. At least some of those likely date to the first century, so your statement that "[t]here was no one in the 1st century called 'Jesus Christ'" is false.

The modern variant in English would be Joshua,

If the English transliteration of "Joshua" is okay, then your argument has lost its foundation. The Greek Ἰησοῦς is no more or less a transliteration than "Joshua." Unless you're going to argue that a transliteration of a transliteration is where we must draw the line, "Jesus" and "Joshua" are just ways of representing the same name.

and Yeshua in Aramaic, the language spoken by Yeshua,

Presumably. That's a reasonable conjecture, but conjecture it nonetheless is.

whose name means YHWY saves.

This assumes that his actual given name was the Hebrew Yahoshua and not the Aramaic Yeshua or Greek Ἰησοῦς. That's a reasonable conjecture...

As for your nonsense about mythicist, it is just that, nonsense.

And the moon is made of cheese!

See? I can make unsupported assertions, too.

Earth pig:
https://www.followintruth.com/does-the- ... -earth-pig
In Latin the word Jesus means Earth-Pig. The etymology of the word Jesus comes from the Latin and so Jesus means Earth Pig. Je = Ge= Earth and Sus = Pig therefore

"Ge" is Greek, not Latin. "Sus" is Latin, not Greek. Treating each syllable as though it derives from a different language isn't normally how etymology is done. It occasionally happens with loanwords and such, but trying to apply that to the transliteration of a foreign name is a bit sus, as the kids say.

[Diogenes]

I think we agree though that the resurrection is a biggie. So, the question is - Did Jesus resurrect from the dead? If he did not, pretty much all of Christianity is falsified. What witness testifies he did not resurrect from the dead?

I always find it fascinating, regarding the believers use of the word/concept of the term 'eyewitness'. Would you agree that to 'verify' a one-time passed event from antiquity, the 'evidence' most heavily weighs upon 'eyewitness' testimony? If so, I then ask...

What is the basic definition of 'eyewitness'? It looks to be: "a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it."

If we agree to the basic definition above, let us proceed. If you disagree, please correct where you feel applicable....

How many first-hand accounts do we have, regarding the witness of a risen Jesus?

I would argue we have zero. How about you?

Further, if this is to be the most important event recorded in history, was it God's intent for believers to rely upon faith alone, as the Bible may even suggest itself, or, do we have actual eyewitness 'evidence' to comport with this expressed necessary 'faith'?

POI makes good points. I respond because of Osteng's remark, "What witness testifies he did not resurrect from the dead?"
I am surprised that an otherwise competent debater would make an appeal to a failure to prove a negative as an "argument."
Arguing that one has not disproved an assertion is always a weak attempt at argument, but it would be even more astonishing to expect to find such a witness in a collection of documents as biased and self serving as those included in the New Testament, a canon chosen by the Church.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think we agree though that the resurrection is a biggie. So, the question is - Did Jesus resurrect from the dead? If he did not, pretty much all of Christianity is falsified. What witness testifies he did not resurrect from the dead?

I always find it fascinating, regarding the believers use of the word/concept of the term 'eyewitness'. Would you agree that to 'verify' a one-time passed event from antiquity, the 'evidence' most heavily weighs upon 'eyewitness' testimony? If so, I then ask...

What is the basic definition of 'eyewitness'? It looks to be: "a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it."

If we agree to the basic definition above, let us proceed. If you disagree, please correct where you feel applicable....

How many first-hand accounts do we have, regarding the witness of a risen Jesus?

I would argue we have zero. How about you?

Further, if this is to be the most important event recorded in history, was it God's intent for believers to rely upon faith alone, as the Bible may even suggest itself, or, do we have actual eyewitness 'evidence' to comport with this expressed necessary 'faith'?

POI makes good points. I respond because of Osteng's remark, "What witness testifies he did not resurrect from the dead?"
I am surprised that an otherwise competent debater would make an appeal to a failure to prove a negative as an "argument."
Arguing that one has not disproved an assertion is always a weak attempt at argument, but it would be even more astonishing to expect to find such a witness in a collection of documents as biased and self serving as those included in the New Testament, a canon chosen by the Church.

It seems to come down to this old debate about that validity of 'negative evidence'. Not to say (with otsseng's point) putting the burden of proof onto the doubter to prove that a thing did not happen, rather than the believer demonstrating that it did. The argument I press about the resurrection accounts is that the prima facie case for it being a reliable record as eyewitness testimony is undermined because the accounts contradict pretty much totally. I contrast this with the crucifixion which agrees on the basics, even though there are contradictory element which can be regarded as additions by the writers, or editors, rather. But in the case of the resurrection, there is nothing after the women going to the empty tomb, which is common to all four, and the claim of resurrection which is the Claim, not the evidence for it.

Thus the lack of an agreed basic account is negative evidence that there was originally no resurrection - sightings (the visions in I Corinthians is another discussion) or they wouldn't need to invent conflicting stories. Plus of course Mark does not have any story of Jesus being resurrected beyond the angelic explanation, which (note) John contradicts.

[2ndpillar2]

Your problem with relying on Paul, is that he is a major "false prophet" of the "false prophets" of Matthew 7:13, and the "false prophet of Revelation 16:13.

Paul can have been the falsest of prophets, but if he wrote in the first century, then Jesus was called Jesus Christ in the first century.

Even that is immaterial. I mentioned Paul because he wrote the earliest of the New Testament writings, but three of the four Gospels refer to Jesus as "Jesus Christ." So do Hebrews, Revelation, and all of the catholic epistles. In fact, the only two New Testament books that don't refer to Jesus Christ as such are the Gospel of Luke and 3 John.

As for the word/name "Jesus", which most of the "Christian" community says one is "saved" if they believe in his name (John 1:12). His name was never "Jesus Christ", which can be interpreted as YHWY saves the anointed one, in which it may be true that God saves Yeshua, but YHWY does not save the "wicked"/"tares" (Matthew 13:49:50).

It's reasonable to conclude that if Jesus was Palestinian, then his given name was Yeshua, but we don't actually know that for sure. All we know is that the earliest extant Christian writings were composed in Greek and Jesus was called Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς. At least some of those likely date to the first century, so your statement that "[t]here was no one in the 1st century called 'Jesus Christ'" is false.

The modern variant in English would be Joshua,

If the English transliteration of "Joshua" is okay, then your argument has lost its foundation. The Greek Ἰησοῦς is no more or less a transliteration than "Joshua." Unless you're going to argue that a transliteration of a transliteration is where we must draw the line, "Jesus" and "Joshua" are just ways of representing the same name.

and Yeshua in Aramaic, the language spoken by Yeshua,

Presumably. That's a reasonable conjecture, but conjecture it nonetheless is.

whose name means YHWY saves.

This assumes that his actual given name was the Hebrew Yahoshua and not the Aramaic Yeshua or Greek Ἰησοῦς. That's a reasonable conjecture...

As for your nonsense about mythicist, it is just that, nonsense.

And the moon is made of cheese!

See? I can make unsupported assertions, too.

Earth pig:
https://www.followintruth.com/does-the- ... -earth-pig
In Latin the word Jesus means Earth-Pig. The etymology of the word Jesus comes from the Latin and so Jesus means Earth Pig. Je = Ge= Earth and Sus = Pig therefore

"Ge" is Greek, not Latin. "Sus" is Latin, not Greek. Treating each syllable as though it derives from a different language isn't normally how etymology is done. It occasionally happens with loanwords and such, but trying to apply that to the transliteration of a foreign name is a bit sus, as the kids say.

There was no one named "Jesus" in the 1st century. There was no letter J in the 1st century. There was no one named Joshua either. Those are modern English versions of the original name. Archeologist have found Yeshua written on first century stone works. They have not found the same with respect to the name "Jesus", which didn't exist at the time. The "Christian" religion appears to stumble over the name "Jesus" and think if they believe in the name "Jesus" they will be saved (John 1:12). If one believes "in his name", his name means YHWY saves. That is to say that the Lord God (YHWH) saves, and not the anointed of God saves. The anointed of God, refers to all the Israeli Kings, Judges, high priest and prophets of God. They are sons of men and save no one. The best they can do, as with Elijah, is make a righteous prayer to YHWH. Yeshua prayed to his father YHWY. He did not pray to himself. He also taught his apostles to pray to the Father, not to him. And the prayer he taught was for Thy kingdom come, which is still held in abeyance with respect to the physical kingdom of God. And Yeshua was never called "Jesus Christ" in the first century. No one spoke English at that time. And yes, the NT is errant as put forth in Revelation 22:18-19, and there will be repercussions with respect to anyone who adds or subtracts for the "words of the prophecy of this book", and those repercussions will he harsh. But do not fear, for in the end, unless you are the false prophet, the devil, or the beast, the final judgment is eternal death (Revelation 20:15). The intermediate problem is the "furnace of fire", "for those who commit lawlessness", in which many will seek death, but death will allude them (Revelation 9:6).

[otseng]

It seems to come down to this old debate about that validity of 'negative evidence'. Not to say (with otsseng's point) putting the burden of proof onto the doubter to prove that a thing did not happen, rather than the believer demonstrating that it did.

The burden of providing evidence is on those who makes the claim.

I've claimed the NT authors testify to the resurrection of Jesus. Here are some written accounts to support the claim:

Matt 28:5-7 (KJV)
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

Mark 16:6 (KJV)
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Luke 24:6-7 (KJV)
6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
7 saying, the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

John 20:8-9 (KJV)
8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulcher, and he saw, and believed.
9 For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Acts 26:22-23 (KJV)
22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, [and] that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Rom 6:4-9 (KJV)
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him,] that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

1Cor 15:3-4 (KJV)
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

Phil 3:10 (KJV)
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

Heb 13:20 (KJV)
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

1Pet 1:3 (KJV)
3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

The argument I press about the resurrection accounts is that the prima facie case for it being a reliable record as eyewitness testimony is undermined because the accounts contradict pretty much totally.

The details can differ, but the main point - the resurrection of Jesus - is not undermined.

I contrast this with the crucifixion which agrees on the basics, even though there are contradictory element which can be regarded as additions by the writers, or editors, rather.

I think we're going full circle back to inerrancy. If inerrancy is not a prerequisite for the authority of scripture, then it is the basics that is important and authors can either intentionally or unintentionally differ in the minor details.

So, using this approach, what can seriously challenge the resurrection of Jesus are claims he did not rise from the dead. There are actually claims found in the Bible that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but I'll let others present those.

[Diogenes]

It seems to come down to this old debate about that validity of 'negative evidence'. Not to say (with otsseng's point) putting the burden of proof onto the doubter to prove that a thing did not happen, rather than the believer demonstrating that it did.

The burden of providing evidence is on those who makes the claim.
[scripture references redacted]

I think we're going full circle back to inerrancy. If inerrancy is not a prerequisite for the authority of scripture, then it is the basics that is important and authors can either intentionally or unintentionally differ in the minor details.

So, using this approach, what can seriously challenge the resurrection of Jesus are claims he did not rise from the dead. There are actually claims found in the Bible that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but I'll let others present those.

Yes indeed, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim; i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.
Since this is an extraordinary claim, a claim that defies everything we know of science and the physical laws of the universe, we do indeed circle back to the issue of inerrancy because to make such an otherwise absurd, anti-knowledge claim, the words of 'scripture' must come from a god AND be inerrant. On what other authority can an otherwise crazy claim be justified?

If I make a claim as contrary to scientific evidence and general knowledge that the moon is made of Schabziger, then I need an overwhelmingly strong authority, the inerrant words of a god, to support such an absurd claim.