Historical reliability of the Gospels and Nihil's irrational comments!
Nihil said:
"Even your imaginary Christ cannot compel an intelligent individual mind to believe his myth. Millions of people have faced the choice, and with no real power compelling them to believe have rejected your myths and superstition for lack of evidence. Why should any normal skeptical mind believe what there is absolutely no credible evidence to support? Personally, I have contempt for those who make an important decision of the choice of god on nonexistent evidence. To me, Christianity lacks credible evidence."
Summarizing Nihil's Jewish perspective:
1.) Imaginary Christ.
2.) His myth.(Christs' myth)
3.) Your myths and superstitions.(Meaning the Christian Faith)
4.) Make an important decision of the choice of god on nonexistent evidence.(meaning Christianity has no foundation for its beliefs.)
5.) Christianity lacks credible evidence.
These Jewish arguments are, of course, classical rabbinical arguments all based upon the fables and myths found in the Babylonian Talmud.
For those who reject reliable historical documents, eschew rational observations, and demand obeisance to discredited Talmudic fables, there can be no valid evidence or proof; it's pick and choose whatever meets your irrational and antichrist fancy at that moment. For those, however, who acknowledge man's shortcomings, but at the same time insist that man can reasonably and rationally judge empirical evidence and historical documents as to their validity, we believe we can reach honest and rational conclusions about past historical events. Historical truths and facts transcend time and endure the fickle nature of irrational men. Accurate and truthful history is sacred.
History is about knowing what happened, and why it happened! Eyewitness accounts and original documents by historical personalities involved in the events reported are generally considered more reliable than second-hand information or histories based on original historical documents. Speculative commentary is the least reliable and almost useless in reconstructing what really happened and establishing authenticity. For the most part, your views are speculative commentary. Nihil's comments contain little to no substantive information. They are exercises in Jewish obfuscation at their worse, and flights of imaginations at their best! Again, speculative commentary are mostly useless in establishing truth.
When historical documents in the New Testament are examined critically and by standard historical procedures, they reveal an abundance of eyewitness materials that substantiate their validity and reliability. We can verify the authenticity and historical reliability of the Gospels by examining both the internal and external evidence associated with the Gospels according to standard historiographical methods. I've reproduced these standard historical criteria below and will examine them one at a time. |
