mjpb wrote:

"Poly has fortunately increasingly cited scripture as historical evidence rather than something that is automatically authoritative to atheists. That gets dismissed out of hand."

Why should the Bible be made a historic or a scientific document? Why can't it be seen as a book incorporating wisdom?

Unfortunately there is no evidence that religious belief has increased human caring, peace, concern for the environment or other attitudes promoting a better world. If there was such evidence and it was connected with a particular religion I would consider believing in that religion.

The New Testament was assembled from 27 writings written by 9 different writers over a 20-50 year period.

Is the New Testament the same collection of books that were verifiably widely known and revered by early Christians?

External evidence

The earliest manuscript of John located is a portion dated between AD117-138. Fragments believed by some to be from Mark, Acts, Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter and James believed to be from AD 50-70 have been located. We have 5,700 hand written Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and 9,000 manuscripts in other languages. Further early Christians from the second and third centuries quoted the New Testament 36, 289 times omitting only 11 verses in the New Testament. Clement in the first century quoted from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James and 1 Peter.

Internal evidence

The writers were either Jews or in close touch with contemporaries of the events they record. The Gospels were written in the colloquial Greek of the period with some Hebrew idiom. Jews of the time eg.Philo (d. 50AD) used the same literary medium. Their numerous references to topography and political, social, and religious conditions of Palestine at the time of Christ are accurate.

The basic theme appears historically accurate. There are slightly more (10) early non Christian writers who mention Jesus than those who mention Tiberius the Roman emperor at the time (9). Non Christian writers collectively reveal that Jesus lived in the time of Tiberius Caesar, lived a virtuous life, was reputed to be a wonder worker, was considered by some to be the Messiah, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover, darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died, his disciples believed he rose from the dead, His disciples were willing to die for their belief in Him, Christianity spread quickly as far as Rome.

Now, why would I suspect that mjbp?

>>how about the key point of the thread and the issue of the evidence of scriptures that was raised by Poly. At risk of Pericles thinking I'm trying an new angle to come back after he dumped me I'd like to pursue that further.<<

Take the risk, mjbp, take the risk, for whatever reason and with whatever excuse you like. I'm always happy to learn more about the Christian's perception of the Bible's position as a historical document.

You point out that...

>>There are slightly more (10) early non Christian writers who mention Jesus than those who mention Tiberius the Roman emperor at the time (9)<<

But Jesus went around raising people from the dead, turning water into wine, healing lepers, raising up the halt and lame and such, while Tiberius was merely a rather nasty Roman Emperor.

Wouldn't you have expected rather more than ten non-aligned folk to have made the odd passing remark about it at the time?

As it is, we do have a contemporary account from Velleius on Tiberius, which is at least one more than we have for Jesus, is it not? We also have variously coins bearing Tiberius' image, busts of his... er, bust, and so on.

As an afterthought, who are the ten non-Christian writers again? I can only recall three - Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus - who even vaguely (and ambiguously) mentioned Jesus.

On balance, if I were arguing in a court of law for the confirmed actions of either, I would feel far more comfortable with eye-witness accounts of evil deeds, than after-the-event recounting of tales of miraculous derring-do.

What interests me is that it seems to be a prerequisite for a Christian to believe that all those deeds, unwitnessed and unrecorded at the time, did actually occur.

Is it not possible just to think that Jesus was this really cool, thirty-year-old virgin who went around telling people to be nice to each other?

I have been to many Seders in my time, but I have never seen a Seder like the Last Supper. Every Seder I have been to had a lot of women around. What happened in the Last Supper? Did women make the meal and were then denied a place at the table. Did Jesus and the boys make up the meal themselves? All the pictures of the Last Supper show 13 guys sitting around a table. It isn’t right.

Then there’s the question of Mary. One would somehow get the idea that motherhood is good, and sex is bad from the New Testament account of a virgin who is a mother. However, she has no real power to do another but act as a woman of breeding.

Many Christian denominations do not allow women to be clergy.

Unlike Moses, Buddha and Mohammed, Jesus doesn’t appear to be involved with anybody sexually – male or female. That’s abnormal.

The Jewish Bible is also male dominated, but women are dominated not obliterated. There are matriarchs to go along with the patriarchs. There is even a female prophet in the person of Deborah. The current Jewish state has its second female prime minister. Australia has not had one.

Yet women are really the mainstay of Christianity. I can’t figure why.

DavidF: "Yet women are really the mainstay of Christianity. I can’t figure why."

You got me, I'm a woman and can never understand it. Especially those more extreme sects like the Exclusive Brethren, why any woman with a gram of self respect would join pretty much any religion has me puzzled. I can understand when it is a result of culture (to some extent), like growing up in Iran, but here in Australia?

Davidf, you have just delineated one of the many reasons I do not and never will, believe.

Pericles,

You are back.

”But Jesus went around raising people from the dead, turning water into wine, healing lepers, raising up the halt and lame and such, while Tiberius was merely a rather nasty Roman Emperor.”

Emperors were pretty influential in those days.

”Wouldn't you have expected rather more than ten non-aligned folk to have made the odd passing remark about it at the time?”

In writing? That is just what has survived the last 2000 years. I don’t know how literate the relevant populations were and how much was written that didn’t last. The original documents written by Roman officials from first century Judea apparently didn’t fare too well probably due to the climate. People who took the miracles seriously would probably have tended to become Christians.

”As it is, we do have a contemporary account from Velleius on Tiberius, which is at least one more than we have for Jesus, is it not?”

I’m not suggesting he didn’t exist. The comparison was just to show that Jesus seemed to generate a bit of interest and it enables confirmation of the general theme of the Christian writings.

“We also have variously coins bearing Tiberius' image, busts of his... er, bust, and so on.”

He was the emperor.

”As an afterthought, who are the ten ...”

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Seutonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the author of the Jewish Talmud.

”On balance, if I were arguing in a court of law for the confirmed actions of either, I would feel far more comfortable with eye-witness accounts of evil deeds, than after-the-event recounting of tales of miraculous derring-do.”

I haven’t got that far and don’t expect to here. There is a lot that can be said about the New Testament without getting into the nitty gritty of miracles. I'm happy for you to judge that however you like for present purposes.

”Is it not possible just to think that Jesus was this really cool, thirty-year-old virgin who went around telling people to be nice to each other?”

Yes isn’t that the normal non-Christian view?