What I believe is based on ancient text which claim to be witness accounts, I did not dream it up myself.
**Claiming to be an eyewitness to anything isn't proof that the events actually happened, just proof that someone made these claims.
What you need to do as well is look at the probability that the events 'witnessed' are likely to have happened or indeed if they are possible.
Your plea to these ancient texts as eyewitness accounts is very desparate for several reasons.
First, no one knows who wrote the gospels, and anyone that has completed even a basic introduction to the New Testament knows that none of the original 12 apostles wrote the texts allocated to them by the church fathers. For example, Papias wrote that Matthew wrote the logio in Hebrew, the earliest Matthew text is Greek and shows no signs of translation.
Secondly,the basic errors that the author of Matthew's gospel makes when refering to Hebrew scripture, the virgin birth for example, and also the blatant lies told by this author (slaughter of the innocents)weakens the case for this text being an accurate and reliable source.
Thirdly, the author of Matthew reproduces 90% of Mark's gospel, the author of Mark didnt claim to be an eyewitness, so why would an eyewitness rely on an account of someone that wasnt an eyewitness ? Did matthew walk about in a trance all the time ?
So you have two gospels negated as a reliable eyewitness account.
SO onto Luke, pretty straight forward, Luke states that he wasnt an eyewitness and doesnt name any of the 'eyewitnesses' he claims to have spoken to.
3 down one to go.
Gospel of John, really distinctive from the other 3, and called the 'spiritual gospel' by Clement. To include John as an eyewitness means you weaken the case even further for the synoptics. For example, the synoptics jesus 'speaks' in parables and witty little sayings, in John he is given long dialogues and discourses, which is a major contradiction between the ancient texts that you place your faith in.
Also from within 'John's' gospel there are problems with the identification of the author. The gospel says that it is the testimony of the 'beloved disciple' but it deosnt actually name this 'beloved disciple'.
Also from within the text is a clue to where the gospel was written.
Read this: John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
The interaction of 'we' in 21:24 with the 'I' of 21:25 supports the stance that the gospel of John was obviously a construction of a religious community intent on furthering the popularity of their particular god.
I am not going to repeat why I believe these texts to be credable. You claim these texts are false.
**Your explicit bias is the only thing that can possibly make you believe that these texts are reliable. How many endings has the Gospel of Mark had over the centuries, two, three or four ? What is the likelyhood of the supernatural events mentioned in these texts being true?
Let's take Piltdown man. Was it not up to the other scientists to proof reasonable doubt about it's true origins, before it was removed as one on our ancestors? You've all expressed doubts, but non of it I concider reasonable, as none of them were well thought through: they all addressed just one part on my arguements, in stead of awnsering them holisticly. You say there are not enough texts available. Well, just suppose Jesus came during the time of the Nazi's. Exactly how many scripts would you expect to find? Remember, the Romans thought Christianity is a threat to the Pax Romana for 300 years. Would they have hesitated to destroy any Christian documentation that they could lay their hands on?
**Forget the texts for a minute, why are there no belongings of the God become man preserved anywhere? Why did none of your so called eyewitnesses think to mark the scene of the greatest miracle of all time, the tomb of jesus? Why isnt his birthplace known ? where was the scene of the crucifiction (sp deliberate. You see a basic problem with your stance is that, for all the eyewitness to jesus miracles and their convincing that he was God, the eyewitnesses completey ignored jesus earthly life, they preserved nothing at all, probably because there was nothing to preserve. A final note on jesus relics, the Vatican has bought 9 jesus foreskins over the centuries !! LOL he was a special guy after all !!
I'm glad you said "I believe that there is no way to prove it either way." We have documentation in the Bible which describes the beginning of Christianity. For me, it's a glass that's half full, to you, it is a glass that is half empty. I say in the beginning, the glass was full, you say it was filled afterwards. (After what, I wonder?)
Somehow, I didn't really believe I can any convince you. As Paul has said: I plant the seads and Apollos wet them, but it is God that makes them grow. So, if someone else reads my arguements, and this leads him to believe in God, or strenghten his faith, then this debate was not in vain.
** You over-estimate your contribution to the thread.
™ Version 4.2