Thanks for the info. I’ll get to reading after the holidays.

Snurp has an interesting point about the historical accurate bits. If one is trying to make a case for a subjective judgment (that Jesus was God), then one would naturally include factual detail as well as their subjective conclusion. Like Snurp, I have no reason to seriously doubt the accuracy of the names and dates of many of the people and events described in the Bible. This includes point 1 on your blog post. The fact that Jesus lived, was a social rebel, and was executed via crucifixion are not extraordinary at all. Thus the evidence burden is relatively low.

It’s the parts about talking snakes, 300+ year-old people, fiery, talking plants, spontaneously parting waters, magically broken city walls, dead people crawling out of graves etc. that I require more evidence. Lacking convincing evidence, I disbelieve these portions.

I regard the Bible as a blend of myth and reality. The two are often blended in mythology where historically accurate events are mixed with the miraculous. I’m not willing to accept that the fantasy-like portions are accurate simply because the mundane bits are accurate.

Your points 2, 3, and 4 are all part of the same narrative written to support the resurrection hypothesis. I’m not convinced that the conclusion came first followed by these ‘facts’. The legitimacy of the narrative itself is in question and requires evidence.

Point 5 just describes someone who underwent a dramatic religious conversions. There’s not much else to say other than those occasionally happen.

Thanks for clarifying what you feel skeptics have faith in. You wrote “I believe that it is an expression of undying devotion to human reason as the only mediator of truth.”. I believe it to be the only trustworthy mediator of truth. Perhaps I have not adequately considered other mediators of truth. Which do you trust to accurately convey truth?

I try to use reason to arrive at the most logical conclusion, but as far as it can take me, I always find myself arriving at a precipice at which point I must make a decision. Either I step out, not against but beyond where my reasoning has led me, or I continually remain skeptical, always looking for that one definitive piece of evidence that always seems to elude me. I believe that my faith is not illogical, but rather alogical—that is, not against, but beyond logic.

This really help clarify where you are coming from. This, combined with your rational defense of Jesus as Christ makes why you are a Christian (and why you are the type of Christian you are) very clear. I cannot step beyond logic simply because I think that once one does, there is no way that I know to determine what is true and what is not. Is this were you use some alternative mediators of truth?

The last part of your post address Sagan’s balance. I described the basis for it in a previous comment.

The authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is a separate subject but I will point out that three independent labs did controlled, radiocarbon dating on the shroud (pdf). It’s from the about the 14th century, about the same time that the first account of the existence of the shroud appeared in Church records. It’s simply not old enough to have been Jesus’. But, even if it was the real deal, it gives no evidence of the resurrection, only of the death.

Thank you for patiently waiting for my response.

Here, for reference, is the crux of your argument in post 26:

Why should any of this make a difference? To me, it shows that the New Testament is historically verifiable on any issue in which it intersects history. This is important in that it establishes that the New Testament writers gave attention to historical detail in conveying the story of Jesus. Providing details such as when a census was given or who ruled a certain province during a certain time does not seem consistent with the construction of a legend. Who else in the ancient world presents us with such historical, archaelogically verifiable detail in the midst of a myth or legendary tale?”

I don’t know about sid, but by and large I don’t doubt many, if not most, of the historical names and events mentioned within the New Testament documents. Generally speaking, I don’t doubt that there was a Jesus, that he walked and spoke to people, and that he was tried and crucified. But that, to me, doesn’t make the case the validity of the resurrection.

You say, “Providing details such as when a census was given or who ruled a certain province during a certain time does not seem consistent with the construction of a legend.” The short response is that those who were trying to support Christianity probably did not believe themselves to be telling a myth. They believed in Jesus, whatever that means (this is important; I don’t think what they believed is as clear as some thing, nor as unified). If they’re going to defend their beliefs to someone else, of course they would want to use verifiable evidence to describe the life of Jesus; doing so would be much easier than making everything up and trying to defend it. It seems foolish to do otherwise, if given the choice. But to argue from that to the claim that “the New Testament is historically verifiable on any issue in which it intersects history” is simply unjustifiable, particularly because of the nature of many of the claims.

The fallacy here reminds me of (but is not the same as) a certain kind of trick fortunetellers use. A fortuneteller gains your trust by making specially (vaguely) worded claims that can in some way be related to you, depending on your personality and how you interpret things. You come to trust the fortuneteller, and then one day the fortuneteller tells you to join X community because it will be the only one to survive the coming apocalypse (or perhaps tells you to give him/her all your money to save your future, etc.). The point here is not the nature of the fortuneteller’s trick; the point is that, even if the fortuneteller was right before, the kinds of claims now being made are very different, and should be subject to, at the minimum, caution. With the historical people and events described in the New Testament, I will accept that some of them are true, perhaps many. But that’s no reason to give uncritical assent to all claims in it, particularly (and especially) when the claims are supernatural. That a certain person was in charge at a certain date is one type of claim; that someone rose from the dead is an entirely different one. They are not subject to the same treatment or standards, and in real life I don’t believe we ever treat them as such.

As to your (and Snurp’s) observation that “your point supports textual consistency, not historical accuracy”, you are absolutely right. I thought that this might be an issue though since it seemed that, after Snurp’s original comment, the textual preservation of the New Testament documents might be an issue. As to historical accuracy though, the New Testament has been proven to be historically accurate in many details that it reports by various archaeological findings. I won’t go into great detail at this point, but just to name a few:

Gallio as proconsul of Achaea: This title was thought to be bogus by historians for a long time until an inscription was found at Delphi that has this title for Gallio and dates him to AD 51. This was at the same time that Paul was in Corinth, which is part of the story that Luke is writing about in Acts.

There have been coins discovered which have inscribed on them the names of the Herod family. This family is mentioned throughout the Gospels as an integral part of the Roman rule in the provinces in which Jesus ministered.

Proof has been found for Caiaphas the high priest and Pilate the governor, both participants in the trials of Jesus. An ossuary has been discovered inscribed with “Joseph son of Caiaphas” in Aramaic. Josephus, the Jewish historian, also mentions Caiaphas. In 1961, an inscription was discovered in Caesarea, which had, the Latin words “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea”. Josephus, Tacitus and Philo also mention Pilate.

Why should any of this make a difference? To me, it shows that the New Testament is historically verifiable on any issue in which it intersects history. This is important in that it establishes that the New Testament writers gave attention to historical detail in conveying the story of Jesus. Providing details such as when a census was given or who ruled a certain province during a certain time does not seem consistent with the construction of a legend. Who else in the ancient world presents us with such historical, archaelogically verifiable detail in the midst of a myth or legendary tale?

I hope that I am not grossly oversimplifying, but I think that it all comes down to basic presuppositions that we each have about the nature of reality. I think it’s a lot like two little boys waking up on Christmas morning to find a pile of manure, instead of presents, under their tree. While the one little boy simply stands staring at and studying the pile of manure, the other little boy runs around the house, searching as he declares “we got a horse”. The manure was a simple clue that the parents left to point their children’s attention to the ultimate reality of a horse.

I believe that the Gospel accounts contained within the New Testament are as historically reliable as any written history of ancient happenings. I have tried to give some evidence of that here, but I would be glad to present more reasons along these lines if it would be helpful to our discussion. Thank you everyone for your thoughts and contributions to this discussion. I am very appreciative for your time both in reading and responding to this dialog!