Jweishuhn said:

            When it comes to the Holy Bible, and more specifically, the New Testament within the Holy Bible. Can it be seen as reliable history or pure myth? When looking through the 27 different books within the New Testament one is taken through first, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Through what is called the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we come to see what is claimed to be eyewitness testimony attesting to the life of Jesus, what He taught, and the miracles He performed. Outside of those four books called Gospels, we see the book of Acts, which provides readers with the conception, birth, and growth of the first known body of believers who are called Christians and are the ones who established the Church. The rest of the books are letters to fellow believers and churches written by Apostles, relatives, and other disciples of Jesus. In all of the writings seen within the 27 books of the New Testament, the one prominent image being portrayed is that Jesus of Nazareth, was the Son of God, the long-awaited Messiah who had come to earth to free mankind from their slavery to sin. He did this by atoning for all of mankind’s sins by allowing Himself to be taken by the leaders of His day, to be beaten, mocked, and eventually crucified on the cross. In addition, all the books point to a Risen King, by this I mean the resurrected Jesus, who was seen to have been raised from the death that was inflicted on Him through the crucifixion on the cross.

            Here are the questions. Are all these books and everything they claim considered to be authentic, historical documents? Should the New Testament and everything that is bound in its words be counted as reliable history? Is it careless for one to completely write off the New Testament as a mythical book that holds no genuine historical value to our world?

            I posit that it is very plausible for one to objectively look at the New Testament and its contents as reliable history. As a matter of fact, it would be flat-out irresponsible for one to deny the wealth of historicity that rests within the entire New Testament of the Holy Bible, whether they are religious or not.

            If one holds firm in their belief that what we learn about in our schools when it comes to the Caesars of the Roman Empire, Tacitus or any other prominent ancient historical figures taught in schools, there should be no reason to deny that the NT is reliable history. As a matter of fact, the NT should be the example of what reliable history looks like, as there is no other work of antiquity that comes close to having the kind of historical evidence that rests within the NT. No other documents can be dated as close to the accounts of the NT, and there is no other historical event or person that can claim the number of manuscripts or writings that have to do with the events and people of the NT. As Paul Gould puts it, “There is nothing in all of ancient writing with this sort of pedigree.”

            Think about it, manuscripts that are contributed to the history of the Caesars of Rome can be dated to more than 1000 years after the actual events with far fewer manuscripts to be counted. When looking at the events of the NT and the writings that we have found, we see dates that hold to be within just a few years of the time after Jesus' death. The oldest manuscripts that are widely used are no more than 250 years after Jesus’ death, but those are the oldest ones. Not to mention these stem from more than 20,000 manuscripts that have been discovered today. Whereas we are seeing on average 12 for the Caesars and a whole whopping 2 for Tacitus which date to over 700 years removed.

            With that being said, why is it that the idea that the New Testament and the Bible as a whole is being deemed a mythical text filled with fables and fairytales? Even most atheist historians will attest to the fact that as a whole, the NT is seen as historically proven. They might not agree with the messages that rest within the words of the NT but they cannot deny that the people were real, the places were real, and the events were real and played a huge part in our history.   

            What we can glean from this history, is the fact that there were eyewitnesses to the accounts portrayed in the writings of the New Testament. Those witnesses went all over the free world proclaiming what they saw by their own mouths and their written word. We also know that through extrabiblical accounts such as Josephus (AD 93), Clement (AD 70-96), Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110), Polycarp (AD 110-140), Justin Martyr (AD 155-157), Papias (AD 95-110), Cornelius Tacitus (AD 117-138), and a manuscript known as the Didache (AD 50-70). The accounts of the New Testament were properly recorded and bear collaboration to the eyewitness accounts within the NT. The only real question that can be asked is whether the experiences of the eyewitnesses are factual or fictional. I feel that because of what the overall message is that lies within the entire Bible both Old and New Testaments, that is where people have a hard time accepting any part of the Bible as being real. Because if indeed it is genuine and reliable history, then that brings to question whether or not the eyewitnesses really experienced what they experienced and just having to bring that question up scares many people. Therefore why not just cast the entire book as a fairytale, to maintain plausible deniability?

Josephus and Suetonius are generally considered reliable historical sources from the time of Jesus and both have facts in them that are known to be wrong and exaggerations.  So, I don't think the New Testament books have to be 100 perfect for them to be considered generally historical reliable.  As far as historicity is concerned the Bible shouldn't be held to a different standard than other documents of that time.

It is important to read the biblical documents as Ancient Near Eastern documents and not Western documents.  The audience matters and the nature of ANE literature is different.  The gospels deal with historical events but the order and what is included and where often reflect a didactic or spiritual point that is being emphasized.  In Luke, the order of the temptations is slightly different  but importantly changed. For a gentile Greek audience, the temptation to perform the miracle of changing stones to bread would not be as great as a temptation to great power and rulership in the world, but that would itself not seem as great a temptation as to become like a god oneself.  Luke’s order of the temptations perfectly fits this gentile Greek perspective, as do so many of the details in his Gospel.

Matthew’s order of the temptations not only fits the Jewish perspective best, it also seems to be an actual chronological order. We see this in the fact that Matthew uses chronological markers in his account – he writes “then…” or some similar term before each of the temptations to show that one followed the other (Matthew 4:1, 5, 8, 11).

Luke, however, uses no chronological markers and simply tells us what the temptations were – in an order that would make the most sense to his own primarily non-Jewish audience. 

John also alters the historical order at times.  It is usually to highlight a theme of a section - such as having a section of miracles of people being healed by the blind in a section that Jesus is the light of the world.  The healings are believed to be real, however, ANE did not expect a precise chronological order as western cultures would today.  

Just off of Jesus' enemies we can confirm these facts:
1) Jesus was born in Bethlehem by Mary
2) Jesus' was raised by a carpenter
3) Jesus was considered a wise teacher
4) Jesus enemies claimed he predicted the future and was correct
5) Jesus enemies claimed he could perform miracles
6) Jesus ministry was primarily in Galilee and Judea
7) Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate
8) Jesus disciples claimed he was a God and believed he resurrected 3 days after his death

From a historian perspective, The number of documents available is a treasure trove.  There are 42 documents by friends and enemies of Jesus written within the first 100 years of the resurrection, with 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 said to be an early Christian creed dated at no more than 18 months after the resurrection.  This creed mentions Jesus death, burial, and resurrection the 3rd day and lists witnesses of the resurrection.  To put it into perspective, the most well known person in Jesus' day would have been Tiberius Caesar.  There are only 10 documents that mention him in the first 150 years after his death - and half of those that mention him, only mention him, because they mention that Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius reign.  

Jweishuhn said:

@just_sayin

As I do appreciate your knowledge on the subject, not completely sure why you selected to be against the argument? You seem to be arguing that the NT should be considered reliable history, which is also what I am arguing for. With all do respect, I am looking to debate this with someone who does not feel it is considered reliable history. This is actually a school assignment that I have to complete. That is mostly why I made it a formal debate. Thanks for your added input though. I do appreciate the stance that you seem to be taking.  

LOL My apologies.  I did not recognize that you meant to have a 1 on 1 debate.  Sorry I messed you up.  I'll play the part of the atheist.

YOU BIBLE FOOL  SHOWING YOUR BIBLE IGNORANCE.  YOUR KILLER GOD, JESUS, EXPRESSED (INSERT SOME OFF TOPIC ISSUE HERE).!!!!!

I don't think the books of the New Testament can be considered history.  They mention miracles and I don't accept evidence of miracles.  It wouldn't matter to me what evidence you provided me.  You could have 24 eye witnesses, that included at least 5 medical doctors, that affirmed that Jesus healed a lame man by growing back his leg, with the king's own official record keeper sealing the data and claiming it had been thoroughly reviewed and confirmed.  I don't believe in miracles - therefore they don't exist.  So for all those examples of miracles by Jesus' friends and enemies that you come up with I'll just sing the science of the gaps song.   
I'm an expert in math and science so If I don't think it happened, that proves it didn't happen.  What, you want to debate the topic with science and math evidence.  No need for that, I've already decided what is and what is not.  (Guess who I'm channeling, @MayCaesar).

SO BIBLE FOOL, ALL OF YOUR EVIDENCE - YOUR EYE WITNESSES, YOUR CORROBORATING EVIDENCE FROM NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES, ALL OF IT IS FOR BIBLE FOOLS!!!!!!!!  I BET YOU BELIEVE ADAM AND EVE HAD BELLYBUTTONS!!!!!  YOU BIBLE FOOL!!!!!!!  THAT PROVES YOUR BIBLE IS FALSE!!!!  (Guess who I'm channeling now).

Well, since I don't like to think, I asked my AI to debate you instead.  He said:

The historical reliability of the New Testament books is a subject of much debate among scholars and theologians. While some argue that the New Testament provides valuable historical information about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the early Christian movement, others raise questions about the accuracy and reliability of its accounts.

Here are some key points to consider:

1. Manuscript Evidence: The New Testament has a large number of ancient manuscripts, which scholars use to reconstruct the original texts. While there are variations among these manuscripts, the overall consistency is remarkably high compared to other ancient texts.

2. Eyewitness Testimony: Many of the New Testament books claim to be written by eyewitnesses or individuals who had direct contact with eyewitnesses of the events they describe. This lends credibility to their accounts, though scholars debate the exact identities of the authors and the reliability of their testimony.

3. Archaeological Evidence: Some archaeological discoveries have corroborated details mentioned in the New Testament, such as locations, customs, and cultural practices. However, not all details have been confirmed, and some remain subject to interpretation.

4. Literary Criticism: Scholars use various methods of literary criticism to analyze the New Testament texts, including historical-critical analysis, source criticism, and textual criticism. These approaches aim to understand the historical context, sources used by the authors, and the transmission of the texts over time.

5. Bias and Theology: Critics argue that the New Testament writers had theological agendas that may have influenced the way they presented historical events. For example, they may have emphasized certain aspects of Jesus' life and teachings to promote specific theological doctrines.

Overall, while there is evidence to suggest that the New Testament contains historical information about Jesus and the early Christian movement, it is essential to approach these texts critically and consider the various factors that may have influenced their composition and transmission. Different scholars and individuals may reach different conclusions about the historical reliability of the New Testament books based on their interpretations of the available evidence.

(Zeus, guess who I'm channeling above?)

YOU BIBLE FOOL!!!!!!!  YOUR KILLER GOD KILLS AND MAIMS.  THIS PROVES YOUR GOD IS FAKE.  BIBLE FOOL!!!!!!!!

The Bible can't be taken seriously because its the Bible.  It doesn't contain the truth, its just Bible.  I should know.  I was a Bible teacher and Deacon at my church.  I believed in the Bible, but I got mad at God and felt He was unjust to me, so I left the church, and now rage against a God I tell everybody that I don't believe in.  (Guess who I'm channeling now)

I know you were looking for a little more substance, but I tried to debate with an authentic atheistic voice.