Adamoriens wrote:Most historians wouldn't accept that all ancient narratives are true and accurate simply by virtue of being written down.
WinePusher wrote:I never suggested this. If you think that the New Testament is literally inaccurate then please give reasons to support that view rather then trying to shift the burden.
Adamoriens wrote:You most certainly just did! By stating that I have to show that the New Testament is literally inaccurate you assume by default that they are indeed factual. Again, most historians wouldn't accept that all ancient narratives are true and accurate simply by virtue of being written down.
No, I'm simply asking you to prove your assertion. If you think that the New Testament is literally inaccurate, then give your reasons.
WinePusher wrote:I said that the fact that the Gospels were written only a few decades after the alleged events gives a more credence to the belief that they were written by eye-witnesses. Do you take issue with that claim?
Adamoriens wrote:Yes, goodness me. If the Gospels were all written within a week of the alleged events I'd probably accept them as eyewitness testimony. We have what appear to be diverging, theologically developed oral traditions, written in a different language by educated authors at least twenty years after the alleged events.
Notice that they were written decades after the events. If they were written centuries after the events, that would rule out eye-witness authorship. But they were written only decades after the event, so an objection to eye-witness authorship based on the timeless is fruitless.
Adamoriens wrote:You've ignored the whole issue: how likely is it that illiterate Aramaic-speaking working-class men in a war-torn region would learn to read and write Koine Greek and become relatively sophisticated narrative authors?
I have provided my reasons:
-There is no reason to think that the Apostles did not know Greek
-Greek was a dominant language during the Roman Empire, it is regarded as modern day english, a universal language that tied the empire together
-Greek Scribes could have supplemented parts of the Gospels that seem to be above and beyond Rudimentary Greek through oral dictation.
WinePusher wrote:Point A: John did not use the other Synoptic Gospels as a source.
Point B: John's Gospel is significantly different from the Synoptics in areas such as style, emphasis and demeanor, but agrees with the synoptics on major events in Christ's ministry.
Point C: Since John did not copy from the Synoptics, but lists many events of Jesus' life that agree with the Synoptics (such as the passion narratives), it is reasonable to assume that John wrote from the perspective as an eye-witness.
Adamoriens wrote:The highly developed theology and higher Christology of John would seem to indicate it to be a later development. In retrospect I see that describing the Gospel of John as entirely legend was rash.
Yes, this is consistent with biblical scholarship, John was the last canonical gospel to be written. But this doesn't refute my syllogism, the conclusion that John wrote from an eye-witness perspective still stands.
Adamoriens wrote:The entire Lewis Trilemma rests on the assumption that the Bible is historically accurate.
Not at all. The trilemma rests on the assumption that Jesus Christ historically existed, preached and evangelized, and was crucified. It does not beg the question because that assumption has been proven.
Adamoriens wrote:Your support of said argument does the same. I for one reject the Trilemma because it does not account for the possibility that the Bible is historically inaccurate (because of myth development, fabrication or exaggeration etc etc.). So long as the Bible can be shown to be possibly inaccurate, the Trilemma is moot.
As I said from the beginning, give your reasons as to why you think the Bible is inaccurate when relaying history. The "myth" position is extremely fringe and out of mainstream biblical scholarship. If you to regard the Gospel narratives as myth you would subsequently have to regard the Early Church persecutions and the extra-biblical references as myth.
Adamoriens wrote:You've repeatedly used the qualifier "only" to describe the twenty year time span (at best) between Jesus' death and the Gospel of Mark. I would suggest that twenty years is a considerable time; is it possible that the oral traditions changed or were fabricated in this time, rendering any hope for complete historicity lost?
Yes, I do use that qualifer because when we study other ancient documents that were written centuries after the events, there accuracy is not called into question. From another thread:
"In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies"—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend.� -- Historian, William Durant
“The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy. Fabulous legends about the life of Alexander did develop over time, but for the most part only during the several centuries after these two writers.� -- Professor Craig L. Blomberg
The fact is when atheists tend to approach the Bible, they raise the bar (either intentionally or unintentionally) that are not conventional means of discerning history.