Are the Nativity Stories True?

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:46 am

Were the birth narratives found in Matthew and Luke invented?

They seem to stem from a common tradition, as can be shown by a comparison of those parts of the gospels that deal with angelic visitations of Mary and Joseph ( Matt. 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38 ).

They share, in common, that during the reign of Herod...

1. A virgin
2. named Mary,
3. espoused to
4. Joseph
5. of the House of David, shall
6. bring forth a son,
7. conceived of the Holy Ghost.
8. Mary is visited (in Nazareth) by the angel Gabriel and told to "Fear not".
9. Joseph is later visited (in Bethlehem) by an angel (in a dream) and told to "Fear not".
10. Mary shalt call his name JESUS.
11. Joseph shalt call his name JESUS.

Beyond that, they are two different stories; Both contain genealogies, but they conflict. The star and the magi, the flight into Egypt, and the massacre of the innocents, are found only in Matthew. The story of John the Baptist's birth, the census, the "tidings of great joy" to the shepherds, the manger, Simeon and Anna are found only in Luke.

Because of the differences between the two accounts and the large number of elements within them that are lifted from the Old Testament, I think that it's most likely that they were created independently, perhaps based on an earlier tradition, to provide a fitting origin story for Jesus.
In short, they are the product of pious invention

Esoteric_Illuminati · Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:05 pm

DoubleO wrote:
Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:Yes, you believe your birthdate is June because you trust the birth records which are derived from witness accounts of your birth. No doubt you also believe Abe Lincoln once lived and was President of the U.S. But you've never seen or met Lincoln. You believe he existed in history based on testimony (physical, verbal and/or written). In the same respect, I trust Scripture because I trust the records and testimony derived from the authors of Scripture. That's essentially what we call "history." It is knowledge of the past, based on testimony. I wasn't there, so I have to place my faith in people who were there. Either you trust those witnesses or you don't.

Now it really depends on the standard of evidence you wish to subscribe in as a critic or skeptic, to determine how trusting you are of testimony and historical facts. I do believe some people use hypercritical standards when examining the historicity of Scripture that they don't use for other historical accounts.
No hypercritical standards are used when examining the historicity of the Bible regarding normal events. All of the things you listed as people believing are normal events and there is no reason to doubt them. However asking people to believe supernatural events happened is naturally not the same as asking them to believe natural events. I would think that would be obvious to anyone that is not extremely biased.

Ah, well, if one chooses to accept an ancient author as trustworthy, I don't see why you would find it less likely to believe their testimony on supernatural events, IF their testimony on natural events is found trustworthy. See that was my whole point. Now I find Luke to be very trustworthy regarding natural historical facts, therefore why would I have reason to doubt his account regarding supernatural historical facts, like the resurrection -- UNLESS I am an anti-supernaturalist??

If you presuppose anti-supernaturalism, you just reject the Bible a priori. That's hypercritical and dishonest IMO. If you approach Scripture with no such presupposition, one can then reasonably come to a conclusion that the Scriptures is historically trustworthy.

Supernatural stories are also applied to other flesh and blood individuals but I doubt you believe them. And attaching supernatural events to real individuals does not provide evidence of fact. It just attaches them to real individuals.

I'm not really aware of those stories. I don't/wouldn't catagorically deny them simply because they involve supernatural events. Why? Because I do not presuppose anti-supernaturalism.

Mary was the only person that could have witnessed the conception of Jesus. And so far, I have not seen you quote her at all.

Hearsay testimony is not catagorically false either. As I've said, I trust the testimony of Matt, Mark, and Luke. The fact that they obtained this information from Jesus and/or Mary does not damage their credibility.

Time does not make the supernatural more believable. And actually we don’t know when the stories were written since we don’t have any originals. The earliest original documents we have are about 300 years after the death of Jesus.

Only to someone who doesn't really believe in the supernatural in the first place! I disagree that time doesn't not make a difference regarding historical accounts and have already given reasons why.

As for the NT itself, we can easily narrow down the dates to the point where it doesn't make much of a significant difference. Additionally, the oldest NT manuscript fragment we have is dated c. 130 A.D. I won't argue that the oldest complete manuscript of the NT is dated c. 325, which is only about 225 years after the events which happened. The most important fact is we have over 5000 copies of these manuscripts dating within 300 years of Christ. These copies can be compared with each other to discover how well preserved the message has been. I think the facts speak for themselves when we find that the preservation goes beyond any other ancient document in existence.

Let's not even consider the writings of the early church leaders of the second and third centuries alone which, according to Sir David Dalrymple, could be used to reproduce the entire NT (except 11 verses). Ignatius (A.D. 70-110) in his epistles quoted from Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, James and 1 Peter.

The books may have been written during that time but we don’t know what was written since we don’t have those books.

Might as well throw the rest of what we know about ancient history out the window too. Since the NT is the most preserved ancient antiquity, it's only fair to catagorically discredit everything that happened in ancient history. Did Julias Caesar exist? Did Homer exist? How about Muhammad? It's all ancient history, so I guess we can't know for sure. That's not to say it isn't reasonable to believe these men did exist. Guess that's where faith comes in.

Am I correct in assuming you are Catholic since you are relying on the church fathers as evidence?

No, I'm not a Catholic. I don't consider evidence left by early church leaders exclusively Catholic

It’s not an Atheist issue, it’s a science issue. Show me where there has been other virgin conceptions and that will be evidence. Otherwise it’s just someone believing that something happened that has never happened before or since.

That's false. Miracles and the supernatural are NOT a "science issue." Science explores and studies natural events. The supernatural cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. The issue is philosophical and is determined based on which worldview one accepts. All atheists (as far as I'm aware) are naturalists and/or anti-supernaturalists. That means they deny the Virgin Birth a priori.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:57 am

Illuminati wrote:

First, the "truth" issue. I believe we can come to understand and know reality. I then define truth as ideas and/or beliefs that correspond to reality.

Fine, so far...

So, I give the benefit of the doubt to the authors of Scripture, not to the skeptic - that's the simple emphasis of my faith.

So, essentially you are saying that your faith determines reality?

In the same respect, I trust Scripture because I trust the records and testimony derived from the authors of Scripture. That's essentially what we call "history." It is knowledge of the past, based on testimony. I wasn't there, so I have to place my faith in people who were there. Either you trust those witnesses or you don't.

Why do you trust people you don't know? The Nazis wrote 'history' too, but that doesn't make it so. The testimonies of ancient authors often bear little resemblance to objective history. Records of battles where both sides won come to mind. Furthermore, how do you know that the people that you place your faith in were actually there at the time?

I do believe some people use hypercritical standards when examining the historicity of Scripture that they don't use for other historical accounts.

Name two.
Fantastic accounts in other ancient sources are considered legendary.

Since we're throwing websites out there...Nativity Stories Harmonized - J.P. Holding

Brilliant Speculation.

When criticizing the way Matthew uses these passages, you seem to have your own idea on what a "prophesy" is and how it is fulfilled.

prophecy n. -a prediction or foretelling of what is to come. (Webster's)
Believers appear to have a much broader definition.

Quote:
Matt. 2:15 / Hosea 11.1 Not a prophecy, just a reference to the exodus.
Another compound prophesy. The history of Israel is recapitulated in the life of Jesus. Israel went down to Egypt - so did Jesus. Israel was led out of Egypt by God - so was Jesus. Funny how God directs events like He does eh?

Wow, it sure is funny! Almost like something you would read in a fairy tale. You could almost suppose that Matthew wrote it that way. Or that Joseph, the son of Jacob, ancestor of Joshua(Yeshua), the dreamer who brought Jesus to safety in the land of Egypt was actually modeled on the patriarch Joseph, the son of Jacob, ancestor of Joshua, the dreamer who brought Israel to safety in the land of Egypt. What a coincidence! What a parallel (most certainly not of the literary type though)! Or that Herod's slaughter of the innocents was foreshadowed (not in a literary way) by the pharaoh of the exodus. It makes so much more sense that these events were directed by YHWH, because they couldn't possibly be the invention of the most scripture savvy gospel author, could they?

From the C.S. Lewis quote:

...I want to know how many legends and romances he has read... I know that not one of them is like this.

A whole bunch.
The parallels between the elements of bible stories and other mythologies are well known and too numerous to list.

From the Josh McDowell quote:

However, when it comes to Christianity, these events are attached to the historic Jesus of Nazareth whom the New Testament writers knew personally…

Neither Mark, Luke, nor Paul knew Jesus. Matthew and John did, but it’s not certain that they were NT writers. McDowell claims an early date for the gospels but he possesses no evidence that more liberal scholars don't also have.

It appears that you try to pick the most liberal dating and adjust your dates when necessary.

I don't claim any precise dates. Can you show where I have had to 'adjust' them?

I do believe that Matthew, Luke, and Mark ARE the authors of these books. You say it's unlikely, but according to church leaders as early as 180 A.D. their authorship is clearly attested to and there is no reason for them to lie about it.

Considering that early Christianity was just one of many forms of Judaism that were in competition to fill the void left by the destruction of the temple I'd say that there was plenty of reason to lie. Jesus wasn't the only messianic candidate.

Notice though you're attempting to make the argument that these "nativity stories are midrash" based on the fact that Matthew and Luke include different details to the nativity story.

No, I'm attempting to make the argument that the nativity stories are invention, based in part, on the fact that Matthew and Luke are so dissimilar. Matthew's use of OT texts to create his story is beyond dispute.

So much of your counterargument rests upon your conviction that the gospels represent objective history based upon the reports of eyewitnesses.
As an indicator of Matthew's reliability consider Matt. 1:17. For some numerological purpose Matthew artificially divides his genealogy into three sets of fourteen names. Even if we tweak the list by counting David twice, and Jesus twice etc there are still 4 kings and 1 queen omitted;
"...and Joram begat Ozias..." Matt. 1:8.
Joram was succeeded by his son Ahaziah who (after an interregnum in which Queen Athaliah reigned) was succeeded by his son, Joash, who was succeeded by his son, Amaziah. Uzziah (Ozias) was Amaziah's son.
"And Josias (Josiah) begat Jechonias (Jehoiachin)..."Matt. 1:11
Josiah was the father of Jehoiakim, who was, in turn, the father of Jehoiachin.
Apparently it suited 'Matthew's' purpose to provide an inaccurate genealogy in order to attain this symmetry.

Regarding the 'presupposition of anti-supernaturalism' we have plenty of hard evidence that people lie, but no hard evidence for any supernatural event. It is hardly reasonable to discard everything we understand about natural law on the basis of the second hand testimony (at best) of a first century religious propagandist.

DoubleO · Post by **DoubleO** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:59 pm

Esoteric_Illuminati wrote: Ah, well, if one chooses to accept an ancient author as trustworthy, I don't see why you would find it less likely to believe their testimony on supernatural events, IF their testimony on natural events is found trustworthy. See that was my whole point. Now I find Luke to be very trustworthy regarding natural historical facts, therefore why would I have reason to doubt his account regarding supernatural historical facts, like the resurrection -- UNLESS I am an anti-supernaturalist??

So since are not anti-supernaturalist, you probably have no problem believing any of the following, unless of course you only believe the supernatural in the Bible:

Joseph Smith found gold plates left by Hebrews and later visited by a resurrected Jesus.

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.

The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.

In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.

A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.

In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death

The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus."

In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25.

Zoroaster was also born of a virgin.

The virgin births that were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.

If you presuppose anti-supernaturalism, you just reject the Bible a priori. That's hypercritical and dishonest IMO. If you approach Scripture with no such presupposition, one can then reasonably come to a conclusion that the Scriptures is historically trustworthy.

You continue to equate the historical part of the Bible with the supernatural parts that are claimed by the Bible. I’ll bet you accept the historical parts of Greek history while rejecting the gods of Greek history.

I'm not really aware of those stories. I don't/wouldn't catagorically deny them simply because they involve supernatural events. Why? Because I do not presuppose anti-supernaturalism.

Then I will assume you accept the list I quoted in my first quote, right?

Hearsay testimony is not catagorically false either. As I've said, I trust the testimony of Matt, Mark, and Luke. The fact that they obtained this information from Jesus and/or Mary does not damage their credibility.

Hearsay testimony is not categorically false but it’s unreliable when used for evidence of the supernatural since it can not be verified.

Only to someone who doesn't really believe in the supernatural in the first place! I disagree that time doesn't not make a difference regarding historical accounts and have already given reasons why.

I agree time can make a difference regarding historical accounts. But not supernatural accounts. Doesn’t it seem strange to you that all the claimed virgin births happened a long time ago. Do you hear of any religions claiming virgin births are happening today?

As for the NT itself, we can easily narrow down the dates to the point where it doesn't make much of a significant difference.

What dates are you talking about?

Additionally, the oldest NT manuscript fragment we have is dated c. 130 A.D. I won't argue that the oldest complete manuscript of the NT is dated c. 325, which is only about 225 years after the events which happened.

The closest original document of when a virgin birth happened is hearsay and is 225 years after the fact and you call that evidence?

The most important fact is we have over 5000 copies of these manuscripts dating within 300 years of Christ. These copies can be compared with each other to discover how well preserved the message has been. I think the facts speak for themselves when we find that the preservation goes beyond any other ancient document in existence.

When you know that the church made a systematic effort to destroy any writings that did not agree with it’s theology, it’s not much of a surprise that those left agree with each other.

Let's not even consider the writings of the early church leaders of the second and third centuries alone which, according to Sir David Dalrymple, could be used to reproduce the entire NT (except 11 verses). Ignatius (A.D. 70-110) in his epistles quoted from Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, James and 1 Peter.

Can you provide evidence of that statement?

Might as well throw the rest of what we know about ancient history out the window too. Since the NT is the most preserved ancient antiquity, it's only fair to catagorically discredit everything that happened in ancient history. Did Julias Caesar exist? Did Homer exist? How about Muhammad? It's all ancient history, so I guess we can't know for sure. That's not to say it isn't reasonable to believe these men did exist. Guess that's where faith comes in.

It doesn’t take faith to believe that men existed. It takes faith to believe they were a son of God. Do you believe an angel visited Muhammad and told him that God had chosen him as his last messenger. If not, are you going to say throw out the evidence that Muhammad existed?

No, I'm not a Catholic. I don't consider evidence left by early church leaders exclusively Catholic

Do you believe the Catholic Church was correct when they picked the books of the Bible that supported their theology? If you do, why are you not a Catholic now?

That's false. Miracles and the supernatural are NOT a "science issue." Science explores and studies natural events. The supernatural cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. The issue is philosophical and is determined based on which worldview one accepts. All atheists (as far as I'm aware) are naturalists and/or anti-supernaturalists. That means they deny the Virgin Birth a priori.

It’s not an Atheist issue in that many theists reject unions between God and humans.

Since a virgin birth can not be proven, it’s strictly a matter of faith. There is no evidence that any person is the result of a union between God and a female.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:40 am

youngborean wrote:

How is this the wrong track?

Although I can see what you are getting at, I cannot see how anything in Hosea 11 relates to Matthew's narrative, besides of course the line that he quotes. Can you explain how this chapter has any relevance to Jesus? Seems kind of clumsy to me.

Esoteric_Illuminati · Post by **Esoteric_Illuminati** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:58 am

Lotan wrote:Illuminati wrote:
So, I give the benefit of the doubt to the authors of Scripture, not to the skeptic - that's the simple emphasis of my faith.
So, essentially you are saying that your faith determines reality?

No. My faith logically fills in the holes via inductive and abductive reasoning. That's how we form a worldview is it not? In this respect I'm a faith-based rationalist. None of my beliefs contradict any known fact of reality. In cases, such as the study of history, we weren't there to witness/experience events as they happened. All of history is based on faith in the testimony of people who were there. It takes faith to believe ANY testimony of events that wasn't directly/personally observed.

Do I consider Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great any less a part of history (and thus reality) because it takes faith to believe in these men? No. Believing the existence of these men and what they did is well within reason given the evidence. It's no different with Jesus Christ. If anything, His accounts are more trustworthy based on the character of the authors.

In the same respect, I trust Scripture because I trust the records and testimony derived from the authors of Scripture. That's essentially what we call "history." It is knowledge of the past, based on testimony. I wasn't there, so I have to place my faith in people who were there. Either you trust those witnesses or you don't.
Why do you trust people you don't know? The Nazis wrote 'history' too, but that doesn't make it so. The testimonies of ancient authors often bear little resemblance to objective history. Records of battles where both sides won come to mind. Furthermore, how do you know that the people that you place your faith in were actually there at the time?

It's to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Why do I trust the authors of Scripture to be telling the truth? There are four reasons that pop into my head right off the bat
1.) Character of the authors
2.) Historical accuracy (confirmed through archaelogy)
3.) Prophesy
4.) Consistency (internal and external)

I believe the Gospel writers were there because they say they were there and I have found no reason to believe they weren't. There is no reasonable motive for them to lie.

I do believe some people use hypercritical standards when examining the historicity of Scripture that they don't use for other historical accounts.
Name two.
Fantastic accounts in other ancient sources are considered legendary.

Hmm probably anyone from the Jesus Seminar. Rudolf Bultmann is another one that comes to mind.

And you believe that since other accounts are considered legendary, the Bible must also be considered legendary too huh? You see this is what I don't like because it's essentially dismissing the Bible a priori. That's dishonest if you ask me.

Since we're throwing websites out there...Nativity Stories Harmonized - J.P. Holding
Brilliant Speculation.

Great, I was looking for something that was par for the course

When criticizing the way Matthew uses these passages, you seem to have your own idea on what a "prophesy" is and how it is fulfilled.
prophecy n. -a prediction or foretelling of what is to come. (Webster's)
Believers appear to have a much broader definition.

Uh huh...and Matthew does just that. My point is that he does not meet the arbitrary qualification of "prediction" that you expect. If you can't see the prophesy, then the prophesy doesn't exist eh? You see, shouldn't you first accept the possibility that God exists and then accept that God knows the future and may reveal the future to his prophets in a variety of ways? Foreshadowings, visions, etc. all are ways in which God does this.

As an atheist do you not reject the idea of prophesy a priori to debating specific prophesies in the Bible? If so, how can you possibly understand prophesy through the worldview lens of a person who does not have such a presupposition?

Quote:
Matt. 2:15 / Hosea 11.1 Not a prophecy, just a reference to the exodus.
Another compound prophesy. The history of Israel is recapitulated in the life of Jesus. Israel went down to Egypt - so did Jesus. Israel was led out of Egypt by God - so was Jesus. Funny how God directs events like He does eh?
Wow, it sure is funny! Almost like something you would read in a fairy tale. You could almost suppose that Matthew wrote it that way. Or that Joseph, the son of Jacob, ancestor of Joshua(Yeshua), the dreamer who brought Jesus to safety in the land of Egypt was actually modeled on the patriarch Joseph, the son of Jacob, ancestor of Joshua, the dreamer who brought Israel to safety in the land of Egypt. What a coincidence! What a parallel (most certainly not of the literary type though)! Or that Herod's slaughter of the innocents was foreshadowed (not in a literary way) by the pharaoh of the exodus. It makes so much more sense that these events were directed by YHWH, because they couldn't possibly be the invention of the most scripture savvy gospel author, could they?

God is unchanging. That's an attribute of God remember. So, it's no surprise that He works with such consistency throughout history.

And if you don't want to believe that, that's fine! That's why you're an atheist and I'm a Christian.

From the C.S. Lewis quote:
...I want to know how many legends and romances he has read... I know that not one of them is like this.
A whole bunch.
The parallels between the elements of bible stories and other mythologies are well known and too numerous to list.

That doesn't make the Bible stories false.

From the Josh McDowell quote:
However, when it comes to Christianity, these events are attached to the historic Jesus of Nazareth whom the New Testament writers knew personally…
Neither Mark, Luke, nor Paul knew Jesus. Matthew and John did, but it’s not certain that they were NT writers. McDowell claims an early date for the gospels but he possesses no evidence that more liberal scholars don't also have.
Mark was a close associate of Peter.
Luke was a close associate of Paul.
Both have very similar accounts to Matthew.
Paul (Saul) did know Jesus (Acts 9).
And there's no reason to believe Matthew and John, as well as the others were not the authors of their gospels/epistles.

It appears that you try to pick the most liberal dating and adjust your dates when necessary.
I don't claim any precise dates. Can you show where I have had to 'adjust' them?
I wasn't talking about you specifically, but rather liberal dating scholars. Archaelogy and other evidence has forced many liberal scholars to adjust their dates. There was a time when many believed the Gospels were first written in the mid to late 2nd century. I don't think you'll find any credible scholar doing that today. You yourself didn't bicker with the Albright quote I gave. If more evidence surfaces in the coming years, I have no doubt that the liberals will have to adjust again.

I do believe that Matthew, Luke, and Mark ARE the authors of these books. You say it's unlikely, but according to church leaders as early as 180 A.D. their authorship is clearly attested to and there is no reason for them to lie about it.
Considering that early Christianity was just one of many forms of Judaism that were in competition to fill the void left by the destruction of the temple I'd say that there was plenty of reason to lie. Jesus wasn't the only messianic candidate.
Yeah, and it's too bad when you get down to the nitty gritty that Christianity is the antithesis of any and all man-made world religions and that Jesus Christ is the only person that billions of people across the world and throughout history believe was the Messiah. Not to mention, all those other men are in their tombs...Jesus Christ is not.

The Impossible Faith

Notice though you're attempting to make the argument that these "nativity stories are midrash" based on the fact that Matthew and Luke include different details to the nativity story.
No, I'm attempting to make the argument that the nativity stories are invention, based in part, on the fact that Matthew and Luke are so dissimilar. Matthew's use of OT texts to create his story is beyond dispute.

So much of your counterargument rests upon your conviction that the gospels represent objective history based upon the reports of eyewitnesses.
As an indicator of Matthew's reliability consider Matt. 1:17. For some numerological purpose Matthew artificially divides his genealogy into three sets of fourteen names. Even if we tweak the list by counting David twice, and Jesus twice etc there are still 4 kings and 1 queen omitted;
"...and Joram begat Ozias..." Matt. 1:8.
Joram was succeeded by his son Ahaziah who (after an interregnum in which Queen Athaliah reigned) was succeeded by his son, Joash, who was succeeded by his son, Amaziah. Uzziah (Ozias) was Amaziah's son.
"And Josias (Josiah) begat Jechonias (Jehoiachin)..."Matt. 1:11
Josiah was the father of Jehoiakim, who was, in turn, the father of Jehoiachin.
Apparently it suited 'Matthew's' purpose to provide an inaccurate genealogy in order to attain this symmetry.
Oh...so you believe that omission = inaccurate and false. Matthew was not inaccurate, he was just incomplete because he gave a summary of Christ's genealogy. He includes 14 generations to obtain a multiple of 7...Luke did the same thing, only he went up to 21 generations. That doesn't make them any less trustworthy. It was common in the Bible for authors to omit certain people in lengthy genealogies.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesgen.html

Regarding the 'presupposition of anti-supernaturalism' we have plenty of hard evidence that people lie, but no hard evidence for any supernatural event. It is hardly reasonable to discard everything we understand about natural law on the basis of the second hand testimony (at best) of a first century religious propagandist.
You have no hard evidence that the authors of the Gospels lied. Miracles have nothing to do with natural law and/or science so of course there won't be any "hard evidence" apart from eyewitness testimony!

Under what circumstance/condition(s) would you actually believe in a supernatural event Lotan?

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:19 am

Esoteric Illuminati wrote:

My faith logically fills in the holes via inductive and abductive reasoning.

I guess your definition of 'faith' must be a little different than mine because I can see nothing logical about believing something that cannot be shown to be true. Webster's agrees; "faith- ...complete acceptance of a truth which cannot be demonstrated or proved by the process of logical thought...".

None of my beliefs contradict any known fact of reality.

LOL! Don't be so modest!

All of history is based on faith in the testimony of people who were there.

That's quite an oversimplification, and quite wrong. This site provides some excellent examples of the methodologies historians use. Notice that 'faith' is not among those listed.

It's no different with Jesus Christ. If anything, His accounts are more trustworthy based on the character of the authors.

How do you even know who those authors were, let alone the nature of their characters? Let me guess; "They wrote the bible and the bible says they're good guys..." and round and round we go.

Why do I trust the authors of Scripture to be telling the truth? There are four reasons that pop into my head right off the bat
1.) Character of the authors
2.) Historical accuracy (confirmed through archaelogy)
3.) Prophesy
4.) Consistency (internal and external)

1.) If Matthew was an ax murderer, and actually wrote the gospel that bears his name, do you suppose he would include that detail? You have absolutely no way of knowing what kind of people these authors were. You can believe whatever you like, but you can't know.
2.) Yes, archaeology has shown that the writers of scripture did a pretty good job describing people and places in ancient Palestine (never mind those pesky anachronisms). You seem to have a higher opinion of archaeology than you do of history, which is surprising. I thought you were a creationist. Are you familiar with the Ohalo II site?
3.) Apparently prophecy is just about anything a believer wants it to be. Had the gospel writers been unaware of the OT messianic prophecies, then their 'fulfillment' by Jesus would have been remarkable. Since we know that they were aware of them when they wrote their accounts, then it's much more reasonable to assume that they 'fulfilled' them for Jesus.
4.) Consistency? Like the nativities in Matt. and Luke? LOL! What about the different resurrection stories? How did Judas die, anyway? The early manuscripts from which the NT is derived were hardly consistent:
"I should emphasize that it is not simply a matter of scholarly speculation to say that the words of the New Testament were changed, because we can compare these 5,400 copies with one another. What is striking is that when we do so, we find that no two copies (except the smallest fragments) agree in all their wording. There can be only one reason for this. the scribes who copied the texts changed them...There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."(from "Lost Christianities- The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew" Bart D. Ehrman.

believe the Gospel writers were there because they say they were there and I have found no reason to believe they weren't. There is no reasonable motive for them to lie.

First of all, none of the gospels claim to be written by an eyewitness or the companion of an eyewitness, nor do any include first person narratives ("Then Jesus and I went..."). So, in fact, they don't "say they were there" as much as you would like to believe that they were.

I do believe some people use hypercritical standards when examining the historicity of Scripture that they don't use for other historical accounts.
Name two.
Hmm probably anyone from the Jesus Seminar. Rudolf Bultmann is another one that comes to mind

You mean this Rudolf Bultmann? "A giant among 20th c. NT scholars."..."Bultmann himself was that rare creative thinker who is always two steps ahead of his followers."..."But he was the type of teacher who encouraged innovative research by his students to correct his own theses." Sounds like a terrible fellow. I would imagine that you would accuse anyone who raised a question about the historicity of scripture of using 'hypercritical standards'. What you haven't shown is that Bultmann or anyone else used different standards for scripture than they used for other ancient texts. I doubt that you can find a reputable scholar who would. As for the Jesus Seminar, I can't support their methodology, however I wouldn't accuse the individual members of using a double standard without evidence. From what I've read, any bias in examining he gospels leans more toward giving them more credibility than they, possibly, deserve.

You see, shouldn't you first accept the possibility that God exists and then accept that God knows the future and may reveal the future to his prophets in a variety of ways? Foreshadowings, visions, etc. all are ways in which God does this.

Well, rather than going through all that, can't I just take the simple common sense route and say that the gospel writers were Monday morning quarterbacks?

As an atheist do you not reject the idea of prophesy a priori to debating specific prophesies in the Bible?

No, I don't reject them, but I do think it's more sensible to look for mundane explanations rather than automatically assuming that the creator of the universe is talking in riddles.

If so, how can you possibly understand prophesy through the worldview lens of a person who does not have such a presupposition?

I try not to have a presupposition. Just because I don't agree that anything the believer chooses to call a prophecy is necessarily a prophecy doesn't mean that I can't understand the concept. Obviously if you believe that a prophecy is true, then it will be true to you.

The parallels between the elements of bible stories and other mythologies are well known and too numerous to list.
That doesn't make the Bible stories false.

No, it just shows where they were copied from.

Mark was a close associate of Peter.
Luke was a close associate of Paul.

So the story goes...

Both have very similar accounts to Matthew.

Since 'Matt.' & 'Luke' copied 'Mark', why not?

Paul (Saul) did know Jesus (Acts 9).

Well, Paul had some kind of vision, but so did alot of other people. In fact Jesus sightings became so common that the authors of Matt. & Luke had to include the bit about him appearing to the apostles 'in the flesh' in order to give the apostolic tradition authority over competing varieties of Christianity.

Archaelogy and other evidence has forced many liberal scholars to adjust their dates. There was a time when many believed the Gospels were first written in the mid to late 2nd century. I don't think you'll find any credible scholar doing that today. You yourself didn't bicker with the Albright quote I gave. If more evidence surfaces in the coming years, I have no doubt that the liberals will have to adjust again.

That's the self-correcting nature of science for you. Too bad the conservative scholars are unable to adjust their views.

Yeah, and it's too bad when you get down to the nitty gritty that Christianity is the antithesis of any and all man-made world religions and that Jesus Christ is the only person that billions of people across the world and throughout history believe was the Messiah. Not to mention, all those other men are in their tombs...Jesus Christ is not.

That's nice.
We were discussing the attribution of the gospels by the early church leaders. You said they had no reason to lie, I said they did. There were a bewildering variety of Christian sects, each with their own beliefs, in the first two centuries after Jesus. At one time or another, in one place or another all of the early Christian writings were considered sacred scripture. The gospels of Mary, or Peter, or Thomas (all 2nd century) might have been included in the canon, had their particular strain of theology won the day. It was common practice then to attribute religious writings to Jesus' associates, no matter when they were written. Why? So that they would get a hearing. 2Peter is almost certainly not written by Peter, and only 7 of the 13 books attributed to Paul are considered to be authentic.

Oh...so you believe that omission = inaccurate and false. Matthew was not inaccurate, he was just incomplete because he gave a summary of Christ's genealogy. He includes 14 generations to obtain a multiple of 7...Luke did the same thing, only he went up to 21 generations. That doesn't make them any less trustworthy.

Yes, very often omission = innacurate and false.

"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations." Matt. 1:17

Now 14 does not equal 18. The equation then becomes:

inaccurate and false = inaccurate and false.

Matthew shows here a clear intent to convey a numerological (theological) message at the expense of historical truth.

It was common in the Bible for authors to omit certain people in lengthy genealogies.

Why? So that they could be more accurate and trustworthy?

You have no hard evidence that the authors of the Gospels lied.

From one of the oldest surviving mss, the Codex Sinaiticus Syriacus;
"Jacob [was the father] of Joseph, and Joseph to whom Mary, a virgin, was betrothed, was the father of Jesus." Matt 1:16
Not only the authors of the gospels, but later redactors too, have altered the gospel message to suit the theology of the emerging orthodox church. Where do you suppose the last 12 verses of Mark came from? The hard evidence is within the gospels themselves, which is why historians don't consider them to be factual.

Miracles have nothing to do with natural law and/or science so of course there won't be any "hard evidence" apart from eyewitness testimony!

Do you mean miracles like this?

Under what circumstance/condition(s) would you actually believe in a supernatural event Lotan?

I guess if something could be verified then I would accept it. Supernatural events always seem to be reported in the Weekly World News and never in Scientific American. I've searched for years for some mystery that couldn't have a rational, naturalistic explanation, and so far I have come up with zip. An infinite number of miracles happen every day, but I don't see them as being dissociated from nature, even those that occur within the human heart.