I more or less discount the OT in that any actual events are more or less events connected with Jewish history: many have archaeological authenticity to back them up. But they are not, in my view, anything about religion, just history. In the NT such incidents as there were, are not things which happened centuries in the past from the time they were written down, but happened in the life-time of witnesses.
Arguably that's possible for some instances - forty to fifty years after the events at least, though, constitutes a reasonable lifespan. For these people to have been adults at the time adds another fifteen years at least. Sixty five is an exceptional age for a man of that era - to have that many of them is beyond merely remarkable. The likelihood that any of the reported events were from eye-witnesses is slim, that all of them were is virtually impossible. That's before you even start to consider the accuracy of eyewitness testimony of any sort, particularly that long after the events, and particular that of people with a strong bias.
To have made all this up defies credulity; and whereas you might rationalise many, or all, of the miracles, there seems no earthly reason why anybody should have made up the ordinary, day to day happenings of Jesus' life: the various engagements with the Pharisees, for example.
To have made it all up doesn't defy credulity - it's arguably a less well-rounded and complete cosmology and story than, say, the Lord of the Rings. However, I'd agree that it's entirely reasonable to think that at least some of the more mundane (relative to the supernatural) events are at least a reasonable account of events that may well have happened.
History is one of my great interests, and recently we celebrated the Battle of Agincourt. The original account of the battle was accepted for centuries; but recent study and archaeological investigation has caused the story to be re-written, with considerable revision. For nearly 150 years Americans have wallowed in George Custer's heroic last stand: A recent, thorough, archaeological dig has cast such severe doubt on the old version that it now seems certain there was no last stand; rather, something of a route. The distribution of remains, weaponry, and particularly used cartridges, suggest a headlong retreat, verging on route. All this, and many other examples, demonstrates the difficulty of authenticating any historical incidents, even when there are eye-witness accounts. But, critically, and this is my point, though there may be differing accounts of great events in history - that is human fallibility, it does not mean these things did not happen.
And that's fine as an account of the provisional nature of history, but effectively what you're doing is validating the increasing scepticism of the previously accepted idea that the New Testament was an historical account. Increases in our understanding of science, in the textual analysis that's made evident the sometimes poor translation choices, the edits and inserted segments, as well as removing the 'reverence' for the canon resulting in comparisons with the apocryphal gospels and other similar documents.
And certainly, whilst you can presume it doesn't mean absolutely none of it happened, it does make it clear that it's entirely possible only fragments of the original events survive.
As with the NT, whatever the interpretation, it is beyond belief that great events are simply made up; and in the case of Jesus, then corroborated by many, many, others.
See, that's not how I see it. You have the gospels, at least two of which are largely based on one of the others, leaving you at best two original sources, both of which contradict each other on many of the details whilst agreeing more often in the subsequent edits and inserts than they do in anything considered the original material.
I see no reason to doubt the sayings of Jesus;
I see no reason to care whether Jesus or someone else said them, they stand or fall on their own merits: many of them, certainly, are creditable ethical principles that I'd happily back, with occasional qualification or clarification.
I do not see why the miracles have to be denied; maybe rationalised up to a point; but to fabricate them is not an option for me.
At the risk of being gauche, because magic isn't real. One inexplicable phenomenon occuring in the vicinity of this guy would be, by definition, amazing, but might help to explain how his story became one that people wanted to recount. To presume that this many otherwise inexplicable breaches of the normal understanding of physics and biology occured around him is to either give up on rational thinking at all. Fabrication seems the most likely explanation to me, given that the point of documenting the story was to lend weight to a story of gods and heroes at a time when heroes were associated with feats beyond the reckoning of mortal men.
It needs to be borne in mind that all the writings about Jesus were put down when many of His followers were in grave danger from both the Roman and Jewish Authorities. Why risk your life for a hoax? Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie? It does not ring true.
People devoted to such an idea as gods don't always think rationally. People so devoted to the idea that they're willing to risk their lives are probably so devoted as to be willing to exaggerate their story - "it's more important that others believe, and after all he probably could have done this if he'd wanted, it's almost as though he did it..."
It seems incredible to me that people could be so devoted to the concept of a God that they'd be willing to blow themselves up in the middle of a crowd
and think that was a creditable act. Lying for Jesus, in comparison to that, is child's play, and we see more than enough examples of people being willing to do that. Joseph Smith springs to mind as a classic case in point.
O.
