One apologetic used by Christians is an apologetic that they would never accept from another religion. "You must accept the Gospels as historically accurate eyewitness accounts." Christians are puzzled that unbelievers simply dismiss the Gospels but have no problem dismissing all the supposed "historically accurate eyewitness accounts" of the miracles of other religions.
When a Christian listens to the acts of Osiris he doesn't hesitate at all to accept these stories as imaginative myths even though a whole civilization was devoted to and believed in this god. The events are witnessed by gods, kings and heroes and chonicled by holy men in sacred tablets. Why then does a Christian simply dismiss these stories? As rational adults we have come to the reasonable conclusion that magic, sorcery, miracles simply don't exist and stories that claim these extraordinary ingredients are certainly just myths. If a follower of Osiris would come to a Christian with his sacred tablets demanding that the Christian accept the myths at face value - you know that the Christian would need more evidence than that. There are thousands of eyewitness accounts of thousands of miracle workers, sorcerers, fortune tellers, psychics, saints and demigods - it is ridiculous to randomly accept that four books dedicated to one miracle worker are all "historically accurate eyewitness accounts" and the rest are all mythology.
------------------------
Let's look at another miracle worker living at the time - Appollonius of Tyana
| "This account we have from men of credit, and have met with it in books in the Olpian library; and we are the more inclined to believe it on account of the dignity of Apollonius; for was there ever any thing among men more holy, venerable, noble, and divine than Apollonius? He restored life to the dead, he did and spoke many things beyond human reach; which whoever would be informed of, may meet with many accounts of them in the Greek histories of his life.' See Vopiscus in Aurelian, cap. 24." |
This is an historic account with eyewitnesses retelling stories about a Greek philosopher who could walk through walls, heal the sick and even resurrect the dead (sound familiar) and yet no Christian accepts his writings or the writings of his followers as "historically accurate eyewitness accounts".
-----------------------
Let's look at other religions; how about Islam:
We read in the "Sahih Muslim" (IV, page 1 467):
| "We were along with Allah's Messenger at Minā that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain (the mountain covered one of its parts according to another writer) and the other one was on this side of the mountain." "The people of Mecca demanded from Allah's Messenger, that he should show them (some) signs (miracles) and he showed them the splitting of the moon." |
Here is an "historic eyewitness account" written much closer to the event than the Gospels but no Christian accepts it at face value. It's a miracle and no matter how many people supposedly saw it - it is dismissed as mythology.
-----------------------
Let's look at the founder of the 7th Day Adventists: Ellen Harmon.
| "In 1844, at 17 years of age, Ellen Harmon was kneeling in a circle with a group of other young people. They were praying to God for wisdom and guidance, and while they were praying, suddenly young Ellen was taken in vision and was shown people walking along a narrow, winding pathway with a steep precipice on either side. The people were walking along very carefully, and as long as they kept their eyes heavenward, light shown on their pathway. As soon as they looked down, however, the light vanished, and they fell to the rocks below." |
Why should we not accept this at face value? We have an historical account complete with witnesses and verification from the prophet herself. This is far closer to the event and even includes the testimony of the prophet and yet no Christian accepts this as "historically accurate eyewitness account." This is an example of the Christian double standard when it comes to accepting beliefs.
-----------------------
How about other Gospels? Certainly if we are to randomly select Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as historically accurate eyewitness accounts than we should be looking at the other Gospels as well.
How about "The Infancy Gospel of Thomas"
|
I. I, Thomas the Israelite, tell unto you, even all the brethren that are of the Gentiles, to make known unto you the works of the childhood of our Lord Jesus Christ and his mighty deeds, even all that he did when he was born in our land: whereof the beginning is thus: II. 1 This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them). And there were also many other little children playing with him. 3 And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed straightway and told his father Joseph: Lo, thy child is at the brook, and he hath taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds, and hath polluted the Sabbath day. 4 And Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying: Wherefore doest thou these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. 5 And when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do. |
Do Christians accept this at face value? Of course not! Even though it is a Gospel and the Holy Thesaurus of Ultimate Wisdom hast told us that Gospel equals truth - we do not accept this account as real. The Gospel of Thomas was used in the early Church and voted down by a very close vote to stay in the Canon. I'm not sure how close this Gospel came but had a couple priests voted differently perhaps Christians would expect unbelievers to accept this fiction as "an histoically accurate eyewitness account".
-----------------------
Now - after all this, can we accept the Gospels as "historically accurate eyewitness accounts"? Of course not! Mark was the first Gospel to see publication somewhere around thirty-five to forty years after the events took place. This would be like trying to do a real accurate history of some cult leader living in Vietnam during the Vietnam war. Considering the conditions and the primitive health care of the era most if not ALL eyewitnesses would be dead and all that would be left are stories passed around amongst his followers. The author simply collected and sorted the stories creating a workable chronology out of them. Chances are he spoke to no eyewitness, just working stories around the Q1 Gospel which was a simple listing of Jesus' teachings minus the miracles, virgin birth and crucifixion. Matthew and Luke are widely regarded as having used Mark as a basis while adding other stories that may've evolved in the interim. John is a Gnostic's view of Jesus, highly poetic, very different and using the vocabulary of the Gnostics at the time. John belongs next to Kahlil Gibran's Prophet as a poet's view of Jesus - NOT an historical document.
Are these documents factual? Absolutely not. Let's just look at the first two chapters of Matthew to see how inaccurate these mythologies are. I'll keep adding to the list but I'm short on time right now.
Matt 1:6-16 contradicts Luke 3:23-31 - Jesus' Geneaology
Matt 1 omits three generations listed in 1 Chr 3:11-12
Matt 1:23 mistranslates Is 7:14 as "VIRGIN will be with child"
Matt 2:5-6 misquotes and incorrectly uses Micah 5 in reference to Jesus.
Matt 2:14 misquotes and incorrectly uses Hosea in reference to the flight to Egypt.
Matt 2:14 contradicts Luke 2:39 which says they went directly to Nazareth.
Matt 2:16 Slaughter of the innocents never happened.
Matt 2:16 incorrectly uses Jeremiah 31:15 in reference to toddlers.
Matt 2:23 "He shall be called a Nazarene" is found nowhere in the Old Testament.
So why should I accept these piles of factually debunked miracle stories as "historically accurate eyewitness accounts" over the thousands of miracle stories found all over the world.
No reason. None. And neither should you.