Well, the thing is, the bible is more than 2000 years old. All of those years, and you mean to imply that there hasn't been some kind of inconsistency in the wording of the scriptures? For all we know, what the disciples claim could have been distorted after years and years of word-of-mouth. It's not like the bible was written as the events took place either. I mean the New Testament was written approximately around the latter half of the first century, and considering there are many different versions of the same bible, it would stand to reason that some - if not, most - of the stories could have been grossly exaggerated.
Ah, this is where historical tests come into play. To go back to an old example, let's take Alexander the Great. The earliest known biographies were written roughly 400 years after his death, but are generally considered reliable by historians. In fact, the first 500 years kept Alexander's story roughly intact, it was in the second 500 years that legend started to seep in and noticeably distort things.
Contrast that with the Bible. The New Testament was written at most 50 years after Jesus's death, and at least some of the gospels were probably within 30 years. (The book of Acts is mostly about the life of the apostle Paul, and stops at his house arrest in Rome. It stands to reason that it was probably written before his beheading in 63 AD. Since Acts is basically the sequel to the gospel of Luke, therefore Luke was likely written within 30 years after Jesus's death.) For legend and word of mouth to distort things to the extent you're suggesting in that small of a time period would be unprecedented. Some of the original eyewitnesses would have still been alive, including skeptics. (Granted, life expectancy was lower back then, but we don't need EVERY witness to survive, just a few of them.) If the claims had gone from "Jesus was a good teacher" to "Jesus did miracles" in that timespan, the Pharisees and other hostile witnesses would have called them out on it. However, no such thing happened.
As far as the Bible being reliably passed down through the ages, we have more early copies and such of the Bible then of any other comparable text. My proving grounds thread had detailed information on that (I think it was in the OP, actually), but in short, we have a complete copy of the Bible dating from roughly the 3rd/4th century, and numerous other copies dating a couple centuries later, plus fragments dating from earlier (the earliest scrap is a couple of verses from John around 110 AD, IIRC.)
Here's a problem I have with your argument, Nic. You often give the disjunctive along the lines of:
Either the early followers thought Jesus was the son of god or they were lying.
The early followers were most likely not lying (for reasons A, B, and C)
Therefore, the early followers really did think Jesus was the son of god.
The problem is you're not exhausting the choices. Is it hard to believe that they DID think he was the son of god AND were wrong? I'm not adhering to a certain viewpoint myself since I haven't researched it enough, but is what I'm saying a possibility?
It depends on what you mean by that. It is a possibility in the BPC sense of "You can't disprove that Jesus might have been an alien with super ultra-tech gadgets to fake those miracles". However, I would argue that it's not a realistic possibility.
Consider that the disciples basically followed Jesus around for three years. They were his closest confidants. Furthermore, consider that some of the miracles they claimed included Jesus's transfiguration, watching him appear after his death and ascending into heaven, numerous healings, raising someone else from the dead, and finally, receiving the Holy Spirit after Jesus's ascension, and doing miracles themselves. If we're going to assume that the disciples were telling the truth and completely sane, the natural conclusion is that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. (Whether they were lying/insane is something I've dealt with exhaustively elsewhere.)
Too many issues with believing Christianity. Unsolvable problems of miracles, non-physical entities, paradoxical God properties, issues with the legitimacy of the Bible, lack of proof, poor construction of the Bible allowing interpretation and difference even among followers, questionable behavior, not to mention the unexplainable belief that there is a right and wrong in reality to begin with. With just one of these problems it is enough to find the idea not very appetizing, but we have all of these. In fact, those are just at the top of my head.
That list looks fairly suspect to me. Over half the list reads as "Problems with religion in general" (miracles, non-physical entities, lack of proof, belief in right and wrong), that more or less comes down to "I'm only going to accept natural explanations for any phenomenon". As far as the others go, that's basically touching on several different debates I've already participated in on these forums (morality, historical evidence, etc.)
Almost all religious people were raised in a religious environment, with a religious family. The only reason why people cling to it is because of the tradition rooted in so deep. Adults have a very low probability of changing their core beliefs because our childhoods have been proven psychologically to pretty much decide what we are later in life. I do not believe religion has no right to be here, but it is sad to see that it is so plainly something that functions almost like a mental disorder.
This is demonstrably wrong. Have you ever heard of Ray Comfort? Regardless of what you think regarding his stances on evolution, he goes out and witnesses, converting people to Christianity all the time. Obviously there are people who were raised Christian, but he does go out and convert people who are atheist, or just never really thought much about the issue.
Just adding something.
When Jesus was put on trial and asked to perform -just one- miracle for King Herod... he failed to do so.
Pilate didn't even ask him to do that. He just asked him to admit that it was the people that called him the son of God, and that Jesus hadn't actually made the claim himself.
He failed to that too.
So basically, even back then, all of Jesus' miracles were officially nothing more than hearsay.
Is this a serious argument? Because I feel like I'm being trolled here.
But to answer it anyway, are you familiar with Christian theology? The idea is that Jesus was supposed to be unjustly tried and executed despite being perfect so he could die for our sins. Jesus deliberately refused to perform a miracle or defend himself (either physically or from the accusations of the Pharisees) in order to fulfill the prophecies concerning his death.
Matthew 26:52-54 said:
"Put your sword back in it's place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"
In short, for you to claim that his refusal to perform a miracle in front of Herod/Pilate makes all his miracles automatically hearsay is cherry picking the Bible to fit your own conclusion.
@Dre
I'm afraid I don't follow your argument. It's clear that the only real objection is that I'm suggesting a supernatural explanation (as otherwise you can replace "Christianity" with any scientific theory and the same argument applies.) However, don't you yourself suggest a supernatural explanation for the beginning of the universe over a natural one? I suppose I might just be ignorant when it comes to metaphysics and philosophy, but what exactly differentiates your arguments for God from mine in such a fundamental manner?
@Sol Diviner
The problem I have is that roughly half the debate hall has pretty much said that it's impossible to prove God, even in theory.
@Economics debate
To put it bluntly, this is a different topic that I don't really care to debate in this thread. Make a new thread if you'd like to talk about it. (Even then, I don't normally debate politics, as I find doing so less than enjoyable.)
