The Tension of Faith

That is only because you deny the truth of the Bible, but if we are being careful about what words mean, there is evidence there that isn't in the other religions. If Jesus performed the miracles John describes in his gospel, which John says he described for the purpose of persuading readers to believe in Christ and receive eternal life through Him, it certainly is evidence. It's evidence of Christ's deity and therefore His power to save. Only by denying the truth of the account is it not evidence, or as I put it earlier, by not regarding either Jesus or John as trustworthy. Miracles are evidence of Jesus' supernatural power of course, but you have to believe the account is honest and true. If you don't, then of course it is not evidence for you. But the other religions don't even make such claims in their writings and that of course was my point. They don't offer evidence, they assume belief and go from there. Punishment in the afterlife is part of every major religion, though it varies as to duration and content and so on. Reincarnation is taught in Hinduism and its offshoot, Buddhism, and you may come back as an animal rather than as a human being. I personally know a practicing Buddhist who has become afraid of what will happen to her when she dies because this is what she is taught. The reason Jesus is called "the hope of all nations" or "the desire of all peoples" and similar phrases is because they understand that there is suffering after death, and that Jesus is the only salvation from it that is offered.'' Christmas hymns such as "Joy to the World" and lines like "...to save us all from Satan's power when we had gone astray, "O Tidings of Comfort and Joy" etc., say this, implying that Jesus offers a comrfort and joy not available otherwise to anybody. Whether you believe it or not is not the point, the point here is that it implies a universal expectation of suffering after death that has no relief except through Jesus.There are also multiple Hells in Buddhism, each designed for the punishment of a particular sin, which I learned early on in my investigation into religion before I ended up a Protestant Christian. which astonished me since we usually only hear of Hell in the Christian context.There's a particular painting I haven't been able to find but here's one from Burma: A Burmese image of HellFrom this page:
Buddhist Hell Paintings Google imagesMy eyes are bad enough that I can't make out much of the imagery but that page is what showed up under that title. I believe there is one short section in the Koran that is about some event or other but not anything intended to prove the character of God IIRC. It's simply a fact that the Bible is predominantly historical and the purpose of that is to demonstrate God's actions in history as evidence of His reality and character. This is true only of the Bible. And again your believing it is not the point, the point is that if it is true then it works as evidence, and those who do believe it is true regard it as evidence and base our faith on what it reveals. It's a general point: we make such assessments all the time. Whether yours agree with mine is not the point, the point is that Paboss is wrong, we do not have to accept all the religions as equal. I judge the Bible to be God's word and therefore a completely trustworthy source of knowledge, based partly on its own character, partly on the thousands of commentaries that regard it the same way, partly on the people I know who regard it the same way and so on. I wish I could persuade you of that but if I can't I cant. The very character of his writing for starters, no fiction reads like that and the idea that the humble disciples of Jesus, mere fishermen etc., could or would invent such complex fictionw is harder to believe than the accounts themselves; the unlikelihood that he would claim to have the objective of writing about Jesus' actions and teachings in a way that might persuade his readers of His reality and powers, the fact that millions have believed it to be true and changed the world by their belief and so on and so forth. Again, this is the Christian understanding and your having a different view doesn't change the fact that it is intended as evidence and if true then certainly IS evidence for the claim that Jesus is God who saves us from Hell. You are free to disbelieve it, but I think that keeps you from the greatest happiness possible to a human being. Based on what? Have you read the Book of Mormon? I read a few chapters many years ago and found it so laughable and stupid and boring I couldn't go on. We could argue about individual differences in the ability to assess literary qualities but that wouldn't get us anywhere so all that can be said is that we see these things differently. All religion is about the Other World, it's about supernatural things, it's about angels and demons and the like, it's about one God or many gods, it's about where humanity fits into all that, and a realm of punishment for the wicked after death is part of most of them in one form or another, also versions of "paradise" where the good are rewarded. I think they all contain some elements of the truth and quite a bit of distortion, which is why God gave us the Bible so we'd have the trustworthy truth about it all.As I mentioned before since there is no promise of relief from the punishments envisioned in most religions it can be a scary prospect for some who believe in them. The point is that the offer of salvation from punishment in the afterlife is a great thing if you have never had such an idea before. However all those fake religions about the dying gods that preceded Christ do show some memory retained by the human race of God's promise to send such a salvation, and again the idea that He brings "Joy to the world" and saves us all "from Satan's power" makes Christianity THE religion of religions.This is what most Christians believe, and again your not believing it doesn't change what it claims to be. These particular stories are evidence if they are true. If you don't believe they are true that doesn't change the fact that if they ARE true they are evidence. Actually, rightfully it is. The Bible is the only source of the true history of the world, and it shows that all the other religions are the work of the fallen angels in cahoots with the fallen human nature we inherit since the Fall.But again, your not believing it doesn't change the claim that it is true and that millions believe it to be true. That's the way it has always been, some believe it, some don't, and will continue to be the case until the world ends.I hope for your sake, however, that you may come to believe.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure, but that does not have anything to say about whether or not the fantastic is historical or not. It is only saying that the mundane is easier to believe. Actually I disagree. The Gospels do not paint the disciples in a positive way, and they present the people who have the influence and the power to have them killed, very negatively. They discredit much of what was important to the Jews in their Scriptures. In the 1st chapter of Luke he says that what he has written is a collection of the accounts of the eye witnesses and others who had contact with the eye witnesses.

quote:

---

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

Certainly there are points of contradictions as we would expect to see in any such account. Look at the variations we get in the witnesses of a car accident. However just as they all agree that an accident actually happened, all of those involved in writing the Gospels, and for that matter the Epistles, agree that the resurrection was historical. Sure but would you really expect an account from Herod or Pilate to include something about Jesus, and to the best of my knowledge we have nothing written by them about anything. About the only account we have from that era is Josephus who mentions Jesus a couple of times but that tells us nothing either. Josephus was very political and for the greatest part of his career a Roman sympathizer, and when he wast that he was with a Jewish crowd who wouldn't have looked favourably on the Christians.

Faith and GDR,It makes no difference how many people wrote accounts about something and how many people believe in those accounts; it does not make the writings evidence. I’ll try to show you what evidence looks like, taking examples from the Bible. As far as I can tell, the stories I am going to refer to are fictional, but I’ll go with them for the sake of the discussion.When Jesus resurrected and appeared to the disciples for the first time, Thomas was not there. When the other disciples told him about it, he did not believe. This is because the testimonies of around 10 people, even as reliable as they could have been for Thomas were still not evidence. He demanded evidence; he demanded to see Jesus by himself, to touch him and to touch his wounds. Only when he looked at the evidence he could believe. Despite Jesus praising those who believe without seeing (which is, those who believe without evidence, those who believe by faith, like you two do) he had no problem providing evidence when demanded.Second case is Paul, he was set in destroying all Christians. For him to change his mind and believe, it was necessary for Jesus to appear in person and talk to Paul (the book of Acts presents two contradictory versions of this but there is no need to go into that at this stage).Thomas and Paul required evidence to believe and Jesus had no problem to provide it (this is of course, according to the story). What they could see was good evidence for them; but for us to read about those stories is not evidence. Can you see the difference between proper evidence and what you call evidence? Unlike you, I don’t believe whatever I want; I believe what the evidence suggests regardless of what I want. The evidence, at this point, suggest there are no gods. You’re getting it backwards, and maybe that is the reason we’re having this discussion. You don’t assume something is right and then call it evidence; you look at the evidence and then decide whether your hypothesis is right or wrong. Would this mean that when the gospel writer said that at the death of Jesus the earth trembled, the graves were open and the dead saints came out and walked among the living, he meant it as a historical event? Because in message 415 you seem to suggest something different: Was he attempting to understand the meaning of Jesus’s resurrection or attempting to report a historical event?

Of course it is evidence. Sure, what Thomas and Paul experienced was stronger evidence but that doesn't negate the fact that it is evidence. Is it conclusive? No. It isn't a case of proper evidence as opposed to not being evidence at all. It is strictly comparing weaker evidence to stronger evidence. IMHO it is both.He is using a metaphor to explain what the historical event meant to them in language that 1st century Jews would understand.

quote:

---

Sure, but that does not have anything to say about whether or not the fantastic is historical or not. It is only saying that the mundane is easier to believe.

---

By ignoring the context, you miss the point. Which is that no documents are automatically trusted any more than those that make up the Bible.(And yes, I know that Christian apologists are known to claim otherwise, bu5 it is still untrue and something they should know to be untrue)

quote:

---

Actually I disagree. The Gospels do not paint the disciples in a positive way, and they present the people who have the influence and the power to have them killed, very negatively. They discredit much of what was important to the Jews in their Scriptures. In the 1st chapter of Luke he says that what he has written is a collection of the accounts of the eye witnesses and others who had contact with the eye witnesses.

---

This is based on assumptions, and questionable ones at that. While the Gospels can be critical of the disciples it is often to build up Jesus, or to explain doctrinal changes or perhaps even to reduce the influence of the disciples in favour of other leaders or teachers (such as Paul).The negative depiction of the Jews and Jewish belief reflects the split between Christian and Jewish communities. And the Gospels are surprisingly uncritical of the Romans in Judaea. In both cases there are inaccuracies in the Gospels indicating anti-Jewish and pro-Roman bias.That they are trying to persuade people of a message a little different from the one you apparently expect hardly shows that they are not trying to persuade people more than present what happened accurately.The assertion at the start of Luke may or may not be true. At least one writer has claimed that it is essentially boilerplate, different in style from the main body of the Gospel. The main body itself contains nothing to support the claim, no attribution of sources or witnesses. We only know of the (very heavy)use of Mark through literary examination and comparison.

quote:

---

Certainly there are points of contradictions as we would expect to see in any such account. Look at the variations we get in the witnesses of a car accident. However just as they all agree that an accident actually happened, all of those involved in writing the Gospels, and for that matter the Epistles, agree that the resurrection was historical.

---

If we look at the descriptions of the post-resurrection appearances the differences are far, far greater than we would expect. Witnesses to a car accident rarely have major disagreements over where it happened.

quote:

---

Sure but would you really expect an account from Herod or Pilate to include something about Jesus, and to the best of my knowledge we have nothing written by them about anything. About the only account we have from that era is Josephus who mentions Jesus a couple of times but that tells us nothing either.

---

I note that you ignore much of what was said. Modulus was not speaking of Jesus specifically but major events in the Gospels. Now certainly we might expect Pilate or Herod or their chroniclers to say something about those.

Yes, of course *we* know Harry Potter is a work of fiction, which is why I said to look at the Bible and Harry Potter "from the distant future when both their origins are lost in time." Christianity is gone and forgotten, and suddenly these two books are discovered by an archaeologist. What is it about John that you think would cause the archaeologist to consider its accounts as evidence of actual events, versus what is it about Harry Potter that you think would cause the archaeologist to reject its accounts as evidence of actual events?I'm frankly surprised that you share Faith's belief that faith requires evidence. I know I've already said this too many times, but faith doesn't require evidence. Requiring evidence is the opposite of faith. If you believe it because you think you have evidence, your belief has nothing to do with faith. Let me respond by asking you a question: How many people on Facebook who last year shared Russian-produced fake news believed they were sharing fiction? Very few, right? So it is very likely that John (whoever he was) believed the message of Paul and believed what he wrote, but how does believing something and writing it down turn it into evidence, particularly the accounts of impossible events. Plus there's the obvious evidence that John is a religious text, e.g.:

quote:

---

John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was with God in the beginning. ³ Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ⁴ In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. ⁵ The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

---

Our future archaeologist will read this introductory passage and instantly recognize it is an ancient religious text. He's not going to interpret its more fantastical accounts as evidence of actual events. Take John 2, for instance. The archaeologist will have no problem accepting that a man named Jesus may indeed have instructed servants to fill jars with water, but he's going to reject the part about turning the water to wine as religious mumbo jumbo, not evidence of a miracle. The same is true of believers of all religions. They all think their beliefs true, and they can't all be right. Likely all are wrong. Regarding the claim of evidence, it makes very good sense to compare Harry Potter with the Bible. They both even refer to real places (e.g., London and Jerusalem respectively). Again, all religions can't be true. At most, one religion is not fiction. What evidence have you that you've chanced across the one, right and true religion? Science relies upon rigorous methods of evaluating evidence, so in a science thread would you argue that inconsistency and unlikelihood are good reasons for reasonably concluding that claims are true? No, of course not. So why are your standards for evaluating evidence different here? Why, in a thread about faith, are you discussing evidence at all? Just to be clear, we're talking about historians now? If so, you couldn't be more wrong, though it depends upon the document. A trove of receipts for goats and figs and so forth? Why doubt them? An account of a victorious battle? Lots of doubt, especially since political leaders are known to be prone to declaring victory no matter the actual outcome. We even have examples of texts from both sides declaring victory in ancient battles. That historical documents are accepted as accurate based upon faith is so wrong it shouldn't be necessary to argue the point further. Even if I really believed that a man was a real sorcerer and that he disappeared into thin air, describing this in real words is not evidence. I described no evidence for anyone to consider. And so it is with the Gospel of John, and all the other books of the Bible. The Gospels are just four people copying copiously from one another and/or from other documents no longer extant like Q. We know today that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. What would be strange and suspicious is if all eyewitness accounts agreed.You don't say which Gospel accounts you mean, but the ones I can think of now just say, in essence, "Lots of people saw it." The Gospel writers wrote that way to be convincing, not because they'd interviewed the eyewitnesses 40-100 years after the fact. Take just the Gospel of Mark, probably written around 66-70 AD. How would Mark know who the eyewitnesses were? Was there a reporter in the crowd taking statements from eyewitnesses and writing in the next day's "paper", "Rebecca of Bethany, who was returning from the market in Jerusalem, said..." How would the "paper" survive all those years? It wouldn't, of course, because there was no "paper". So how would Mark know who all the eyewitnesses were and track them all down after the passage of so much time?Obviously Mark couldn't and didn't track down eyewitnesses. He was passing on the story as it was provided to him, either by people and/or by earlier accounts like Q. And the same was even more true of the later Gospel writers.--Percy

The entire history of Christianity recognizes that John wrote his account of the great acts and miracles of Jesus as evidence to persuade readers to put their trust in Him. It certainly is evidence. Both are evidence, you merely have a prejudice in favor of direct evidence that you yourself can witness, as did Thomas. So does that mean if you go and tell someone else of what you witnessed but that person is not in a position to see it that your witness is false or isn't evidence? We're in the same position toward Thomas and John's account of Thomas' seeing Jesus' wounds as Thomas was in relation to his fellow disciples who had told him of the resurrection that he refused to believe. Witness evidence IS evidence, that is recognized in courts of law after all, and that's why John could describe as evidence his own written account of all the things Jesus did that his readers are not in a position to witness personally. Witness evidence is always weaker, but when you have ten people you've been with for a long time telling you the same thing, not to trust them shows a failure on your part more than on theirs. When you have the gospel accounts of John having endured two thousand years gathering millions of people who believe it is true just as John presented it, the problem is with those who refuse to believe it, not with John or others who have passed it on. Jesus said that those who believe without seeing are "blessed" because that is the kind of evidence most of us have, without any possibility of having direct experience of the things told to us, and if we refuse to believe it we have nothing at all.Yes Jesus also gave Paul direct evidence, but again we have to believe Paul about that, and the writers who tell it to us so we are in no better position concerning their personal experience than we are concerning the testimony of the disciples who witnessed the resurrection that Thomas refused to believe, This is why Jesus gave direct evidence, to show that it makes no difference to those who don't get to experience it, always the majority must believe the witnesses or have nothing at all to persuade them due to their own stubborn distrust. All the disciples and many others who saw Jesus, thousands, had direct evidence of His miracles. Thousands witnessed the multiplying of the loaves and fishes. All over Galilee and Judea there would have been people who saw family members healed and raised from the dead and set free from demons. But you'll only believe in such things if you have the same direct experience? There was nothing more credulous about them than about us, it's just a conceit to think so. If Thomas needed direct proof, he's just like you. As a matter of fact in the beginning when I was learning about religions and didn't yet believe in any particular religion, I had quite a struggle with much of what Christianity asks us to believe that I had formerly rejected. I would say that it was the accumulation of evidence in its favor as I went on studying that finally overcame my doubts. Evidence of all sorts including the biblical witness evidence to miracles and the testimony of all sorts of believers. I even found the testimony of those who went on rejecting it to be helpful evidence toward believing in many cases. Where did I "assume" anything? I said "if they are true" then they are evidence. How one arrives at the assessment of their truth is another subject; the fact remains that IF they are true then they are evidence. It's only if you dismiss them as fiction that they can't be evidence for anything, but if you accept them as true, say perhaps because you judge John to be a faithful witness, then they are evidence for you and become a basis for receiving salvation through Christ, which is what John hoped. Such evidence can be a door into hitherto completely unsuspected supernatural realities. Of course multiple millions, even billions, of believers in "gods" isn't sufficient for you. If you witnessed an apparition of a "god" would you believe that? Try telling someone else about your experience and they will say there is no evidence of gods just as you now do. "But uh, I saw one..." well you're dreaming or nuts or something, there are no gods. And then of course there is the Bible which is a remarkable collection of testimonies to a particular one and only God., that millions upon millions have believed.You address the rest of your message to GDR but perhaps I'll venture a response: There's no connection with Harry Potter involved, and GDR may think the phenomena in question were just metaphorical or something, but it reads as straight fact and that's how traditional Christians read it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How on earth could anyone have faith in someone or anything else without having some evidence of the trustworthiness of that person or situation or whatever? Faith in God or Christ or Buddha or Allah doesn't just pop into someone's head out of the blue, it is the result of accumulated knowledge about God or Christ or the history of the religion or even just your trust in many family members who believe.Once you have such faith you then can build on it with faith in other things that aren't evidenced, such as the promises of God, because of your basic faith in the person or the Bible or whatever that was based on evidence of the person or book's trustworthiness. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

By education, by influence of others and by deciding to have faith.There is no strong evidence Jesus ever existed.There is absolutely no evidence that God exists and the Bible is strong evidence that God is simply a human creation.Yet I have faith that there is a God (though almost certainly NOT any of the God characters in the Bible stories) and that Jesus did live and charged us with a method of living our lives.It really is that simple.Edited by jar, : little f

Im on vacation and I dont want to spend a lot of time on this so I just want to respond to this. I have not claimed that faith requires evidence. Faith does not require evidence.My claim is that there is evidence in the fact that the NT exists. That is evidence which can be accepted or rejected. We can discuss the strength of that as evidence, and on that we will obviously disagree, but the fact remains that it is evidence.

The Reformation had as much to do with politics as it did with doctrine. And of course many of the Protestant doctrines are garbage. Revelation 18 spoke explicitly (literally) about Babylon. The Roman Catholic church didn't even exist when Revelation was written. You can put any figurative spin on it that you want but your spin isn't Biblical.

You didn't address the part where Modulous said, "We definitely don't have faith that they are accurate without further evidence." Likely Modulous has a different opinion on what constitutes evidence than me. I don't believe that whatever anyone scribbles becomes evidence of the truth of what they scribble about. Some of what people scribble describes evidence, some does not. In my view the Bible describes very little that could be considered evidence. It does describe some places and people we know existed, such as Jericho, Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate, Herod, and this *does* represent evidence for the historicity of these places and people. Because the Bible, mostly the Old Testament, contains so much history, it does represent evidence of some people and some events. But the Old Testament also describes many obviously impossible events. The New Testament contains very little of the type of history contained in the Old Testament, being mostly accounts about individuals, and it too describes many obviously impossible events.An example of where the Bible combines both the historical and the fantastical is the siege of Jerusalem under Hezekiah by Sennacherib's Assyrian army (I'm familiar with this already, but am verifying my recollection with the Wikipedia article on Hezekiah). The Biblical and Assyrian accounts largely agree that the Assyrians eventually abandoned the siege, but the Bible says an angel of the Lord struck down most of the Assyrian army and they then departed, while the Assyrian account says Hezekiah agreed to pay tribute to the Assyrians and become a vassal king, after which Sennacherib ended the siege.The Bible does state that Hezekiah paid tribute to the Assyrians (2 Kings 18:14), but immediately follows that passage with a description of how Sennacherib came to lay siege to Jerusalem, which seems to confuse the order of events, but no matter, that's not the main issue here. The Assyrian account mentions a different amount than the Bible, but the important detail in the Bible is where it claims an angel of the Lord wiped out most of the Assyrian army (Herodotus does say the Assyrian army suffered many deaths).The important fact here is that the Bible presents no evidence that an angel of the Lord did anything, and there's certainly no extra-Biblical evidence. There's no evidence of the existence of angels, and no evidence of the existence of God, and no evidence that whatever befell the Assyrian army (if anything) was caused by an angel of the Lord. This evidence of supernatural claims is absent throughout the Bible, and no evidence from other sources has ever come to light.The Bible describing a supernatural event does not represent evidence, but if you do want to insist that that it *is* evidence then consistency demands that you give equal credence to similarly flimsy claims of supernatural events from other religions. Given when Luke was written, and given the difficulty of identifying and finding eyewitnesses after so much time had passed, at least 50 years, Luke could not likely have had any original eyewitnesses as sources. There is no evidence provided that the accounts were really from eyewitnesses, and in fact much of Luke obviously drew upon earlier written material, a fact he fails to mention. Yes, but again, the followers of any religion accept some tenets as basic. Agreement about such things isn't evidence that they're true. The Testimonium Flavianum contains unlikely language for Josephus (e.g., "He was the Messiah") and is widely regarded as highly altered. There seems to be some scholarly consensus of what it originally said, but I couldn't find anything specific. The reference to the stoning of James brother of Jesus is disputed because, again, it includes unlikely language for Josephus, specifically the reference to the "Jesus, who was called Christ."--Percy

We're pretty much disagreeing about what constitutes evidence. For you evidence has a spectrum of strength from weak to strong, and for Paboss and me it is facts. Thomas's direct observation of Jesus and his wound made it a fact for him. For you the assertion by the other disciples that Jesus was alive is also evidence for Thomas, just weaker evidence than actually observing Jesus himself.For me and Paboss what people say or write is not evidence (assuming they're not writing a mathematical proof or some such). Actual evidence is a direct result of something that happened. It is not someone writing about something that happened. The broken window and the baseball on the floor is evidence. A picture with a timestamp is evidence. Boys with bats and gloves running away is evidence. Someone telling me that boys playing baseball broke the window is evidence, given the corroboration of the broken window and the baseball on the floor. But someone just writing that there's a broken window with a baseball on the floor is not evidence. The raising of the saints which was supposed to happen at the end of time is both fact and metaphor, and was intended to explain to 1st century Jews what had happened, even though time did not end? My word!--Percy

But it does say that we don't simply have faith in something, fantastic or mundane. Which is what I was saying. There is a lot of things that biased reporters say to 'big up' their claims to their or other's authority and we rightly treat them with a pinch of salt. That isn't disagreeing with me. The Gospels were not written by the disciples, they were written by people attempting to persuade. By making the disciples less than perfect they make it easier to show how great Jesus us - a method of persuasion when trying to market Jesus as awesome. Having an enemy is also persuasive. Just look at modern day extremist literature - they present people who have the power to have them killed very negatively too. That hardly speaks to its truth - it's a standard technique to unite by constructing a narrative of a common enemy - often Jewish religious authorities.The disciples are regularly depicted as being dumb, serving as a narrative hook for Jesus to provide more exposition. Much like Socrates' opponents were convenient to Socrates making his points (or rather, Plato). I think the contradictions are more significant than witness accounts of a car accident. I actually looked at car accident witness statements as part of my living as when I worked in motor insurance. So let's look at a relatively mundane event - the healing of the mother-in-law.In Matthew 8 - the event takes place in Peter's home and it's Peter's mother-in-law
But Mark 1 and Luke 4 describe it happening in Simon's home and it was Simon's mother-in-law.If I had only two witnesses and they disagreed with who was driving a car - both accounts would be thrown out. With three - all accounts are suspect, but we'd side with the two that do agree normally.But it's not just the differences - ironically the similarities are a problem too. If three witnesses describe the same event too closely - one must suspect they have either copied from another - tainting the credibility of all three, or they've copied from a common source doing likewise.Matthew 9: "As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, Follow me. And he got up and followed him. And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? But when he heard this, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.Mark 2: "As {Jesus} was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, Follow me. And he got up and followed him. And as he sat at dinner in Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples--for there were many who followed him. When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners? When Jesus heard this, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.Luke gives an account very very similar to Mark.So they cannot be said to be independent sources. At best we have the synoptic gospels and John. And the differences between them can be pretty large. I think we can agree that agreement this broad was one of the criterion for them being included in the Bible. It doesn't matter. It remains uncorroborated from named witnesses, especially those who are not biased towards selling Jesus as awesome. There are several 7th Century references to Muhammed from non-Muslim sources which is a good start when arguing for him actually existing and being involved in the events discussed by those texts.What does matter is that certain major events are unique to the Gospels - despite affecting more than the cast of the Gospels. The pardoning of criminals at Passover, the walking dead, the census rules of returning to one's birth home etc etc. These are narratively useful conceits - but there is no external evidence of them happening. Indeed - some sixty years after Jesus was alive Josephus may have mentioned that there was a man with a common name of Yeshua who was referred to by some as 'the anointed one'. As you say, it tells us very little.In conclusion we don't have 4 sources and we don't have any grounds to accept the credibility of any of them on any of the important points.

And that evidence would be? Would it happen to be words in a book?What happened to faith? I'll use myself as an example. I have faith that God exists and that the universe has purpose. I have no evidence. It is what I feel deeply inside. It's called faith. Have some. I wouldn't compare your "evidence" for your faith to climate change. I'd compare it to the flat-earthers.--Percy