quote:
Im more interested in the sources of such information both pro and con and on what led you to conclude much of what you conclude. The apologists have many of the pro sources, and some of them appear quite credible. Of course I recall the "experts" that the apologist cited (Parson) in the videos I showed on ICANTS Great Debate Thread. I also heard the "experts" that Lee Strobel cited in his Case For Christ and case For Faith books...which were refuted by Internet Infidels counter-apologist arguments. So I hear two basic argument/counter-argument narratives from two sides of the issue regarding Biblical Accuracy, Authorship, and Motive for such.
It’s not just about what experts appear credible. Strobel specialises in throwing softball questions at experts (or sometimes non-experts) who agree with him. He’s not acting as an investigative reporter, he’s promoting a viewpoint - and I suppose there is no harm in reading his books so long as you know that he is only presenting one side and the other (or others) is never going to be given a fair hearing in his work.
It’s also about checking what they say - especially online sources. I almost always look up any Bible verses that are cited, sometimes in multiple translations, I’ve checked Josephus and other classical sources (all the famous ones can be found on line, in translation). I’ve even looked up interlinear Bibles to check the original language on occasion. That is one way to tell good sources from bad. I also do that with historical claims.
Although I suppose that there are a lot of really bad apologetics in print, so don’t think that print automatically gets a pass.
Books I have used are Robin Lane Fox’s
The Unauthorised Version and Finkelstein and Silberman’s
The Bible Unearthed
The Internet Infidel’s Library is not bad but I do not endorse everything in it.
Wikipedia is a lot better than you might think - I won’t unreservedly recommend it and it can be sabotaged but it is usually quite good at giving mainstream views.
Peter Kirby’s
Early Christian Writings and
Early Jewish Writings are useful resources. Mainly for the translated texts themselves than the offsite links which are often broken.
Other sites of interest are
Celsus run by ancient historian Matthew Ferguson. Rarely updated these data but with some interesting stuff.
He also has some interesting links in his blog roll (except some are dead).
Is That in the Bible seems decent even if the writer is an amateur.
NT Blog hasn’t been updated lately, but it’s host, Mark Goodacre, is a genuine Bible scholar.
Richard Carrier’s blog is there, too, but it’s a bit of a mixed bag. He can be OK but his Jesus mythicism looks dodgy to me (bad enough that I refuse to buy his book to see if his argument is as bad as it seems) - and his personal life is not a topic I want to look at at all.
quote:
What I have not concluded, which you obviously have, is why one set of arguments is more accurate and persuasive than the other set of arguments.
That is where the checking comes in. And where examining the arguments comes in too. It is not just a matter of deciding that one is more plausible than the other. It’s about finding out which one really is the best.
quote:
So far nobody has convinced me that the stories were contrived or presented with the human intention of selling a message or persuading a population to believe in a movement.
I am sure that the Gospel writers had the intent of promoting their religion. But that is different from actually contriving the stories. However, the stories very likely changed over time and the author’s biases will reflect how they present them. Compare, for instance the two stories of Judas’ death. They both depict a tale pleasing to believers (in Matthew 27 Judas is overcome with remorse and kills himself. In Acts 1 Peter says that Judas died mysteriously while inspecting his reward). It’s likely that these two stories were told and believed in Christian communities (and at least one other story existed!) and we can’t say where they came from. But it is obvious that at least one and possibly both are fiction, and their pleasing nature may well have more to do with their survival than any truth they may have had.
quote:
What specifically leads you to conclude that Jesus never rose from the dead?
At first it was the lack of any good evidence. Now I have a stronger case that the evidence we have is better explained by Jesus remaining dead.
quote:
What specifically led you to conclude that God is fiction in all human literature generally and in the bible specifically?
Studying comparative religion (at school) lead me to the realisation that there really wasn’t anything so special about Christianity that put it above the many other religions. Which lead to more questioning and a shortage of good answers. The dishonesty I’ve encountered here even from liberal Christians (who are generally better than fundamentalists) hasn’t exactly changed my mind.
quote:
And why do you like to talk about these topics in an attempt to "set the record straight" with naive believers?
One thing I will say is that I do not go to Christian (or Muslim or Hindu etc etc) forums to argue with them. People who come here - or come to the atheist sites I’ve been on have to expect disagreement and discussion. And why should I not discuss matters I’ve found interesting enough to investigate ? Or why should I not correct false claims - especially on a site which is supposed to be about getting to the truth.
™ Version 4.2
(1)