Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Randy Carson]

The Author of the Gospel of John
by Max Andrews
http://sententias.org/2013/01/19/gospel-of-john/

A logical order of argument for why the author of the fourth Gospel, John, was written by John the apostle.

• The author identified himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (21:20, 24), a prominent figure in the Johannine narrative (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20).
• The author used the first person in 1:14, “we have seen his glory,” revealing that he was an eyewitness to the accounts contained in his Gospel.
• The “we” of 1:14 refers to the same people as does 2:11, Jesus’ disciples. Thus, the writer was an apostle, an eyewitness, and a disciple of Jesus.
• Since the author never referred to himself by name, he cannot be any of the named disciples at the Last Supper: Judas Iscariot (13:2, 26â€"27), Peter (13:6â€"9), Thomas (14:5), Philip (14:8â€"9), or Judas the son of James (14:22).
• The disciple that Jesus loved is also one of the seven mentioned in the last chapter: “Simon Peter, Thomas (called ‘Twin’), Nathanael from Cana of Galilee, Zebedee’s sons, and two other of his disciples” (21:2; see 21:7).
• Peter and Thomas have already been eliminated. Nathanael is also ruled out as a possible author since the author remains unnamed in John’s Gospel.
• The author must be either one of “Zebedee’s [two] sons” or one of the “two other of [Jesus’] disciples.” Of the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, James can safely be ruled out since he was martyred in the year 42 (see Acts 12:2). This leaves John the son of Zebedee as the probably author of the Gospel.

The Early Church Fathers named the author of the gospel:

Irenaeus (c. 130â€"200):
“John the disciple of the Lord, who leaned back on his breast, published the Gospel while he was a resident at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies 3.1.2).

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150â€"215):
“John, last of all … composed a spiritual Gospel” (quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.7).

On the other side of the argument, those who doubt apostolic authorship take their point of departure from a quote of Papias (c. 60â€"130) by Eusebius (c. 260â€"340). Papias appeared to refer to a John other than the apostle:

“And if anyone chanced to come who had actually been a follower of the elders, I would enquire as to the discourses of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples; and the things which Aristion and John the Elder, disciples of the Lord, say” (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.4â€"5, emphasis added).

[stromboli]

https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/

No Mention of Gospels Until 2nd Century

There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Dissertations upon Irenaeus).

The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] â€" do not occur once in all his writings” (Christian Records, p. 71).

Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings  to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple  which occurred in 70 CE.
Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John, and Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written or compiled.

These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are “according” to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, “They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority.” Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: “They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).

The Gospel According To Mark

The Gospel According to Mark is the most important of the synoptic gospels because it is the primary source for Matthew and Luke. Seventy six percent of Mark is reproduced almost word-for-word in both Matthew and Luke. An additional 18% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew but not in Luke, and an further 3% of Mark is in Luke but not in Matthew. This means that 97% of Mark is reproduced in Matthew and/or Luke.

Matthew contains 606 of Mark’s 661 verses. Luke contains 320 of Mark’s 661 verses. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce, Luke reproduces 31; therefore there are only 24 verses in all of Mark not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke.

Much of what is present  in this section I learned from a Christian with excellent credentials, Ian Bond, who who closes his webpage with “Yours, In Christ”. His web page, “Who Wrote The Synoptic Gospels” is much better and shorter than mine. I encourage you to read what he has to say and then come back. The diagram below is lifted, without permission, from his writings. I hope he is understanding. Clicking on the diagram takes you to his website, so it’s kinda like not copying it.

Who Wrote Mark and What Were His Sources?

Not even the Bible claims that Mark was an eye witness to Jesus’ ministry. Modern, non Christian biblical  scholars believe that the gospel of Mark was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written). These stories were in circulation year after year, told in different languages and in different countries from that of Jesus.

That’s it. The source for the gospel of Mark is other peoples’ stories and writings. In other words, all of Mark’s sources were at best, second hand, more likely fifth or sixth hand. What happens to stories that circulate orally for years? Obviously, they come to be changed in the retelling. Thus, the source for much of the synoptic gospels is no more than hearsay.

Apologists dismiss the charge of “hearsay” by pointing to the strength of the “oral tradition”. The simple childhood game of “Telephone” is sufficient to illustrate the point that stories told mouth to mouth for 35 years or more can’t possibly retain their original content.

The Gospel of Mark is the first of the Gospels to proffer quotes allegedly from Jesus. We question how authentic these quotes could possibly be, given the convoluted path from Jesus’ lips to “Marks” writing and the years that passed since the words were allegedly spoken. We have written a treatise on the impossibilities of Jesus’ actual words being accurately recorded 40+ years after they were spoken.

And so on. Long article. Read it.

[Flanker1Six]

The gospels are too true!  It says so right in the sales brochure............................eeeeeerrrrrrrrr; I mean Bible.   

Your sole is essentially like your money.  Wery waluable; you would not trust money to any bahnk, nyet?  So!   You should trust sole to bible!   Becuz, bible iz true....................says so in one bible book.  Trust me.....................I hahve pen!   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjr1KyEDW0E

[Unbeliever]

The pen is mightier than the dork...

[Randy Carson]

https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/

And so on. Long article. Read it.

I will. Printing it out now.

Thanks.

PS - The opening paragraphs don't appear to be too problematic from my perspective. Maybe he has something substantive further on...

[21CIconoclast]

Randy, hello?

Why do you continue to LIE about your primitive Catholic faith? Huh?  The gospels WERE NOT EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS!  They're built upon HEARSAY, just like your alleged other attempts to prove your serial killer Yahweh god Jesus, period!  The alleged gospels were written 70 years plus, book of Mark, AFTER the alleged life of your serial killer Jesus god, FACT! And these are "eyewitnesses? LOL!!!

Wow, you pseudo-christians will go to great lengths in trying in vain to prove your mythical Jesus character, won't you? LOL  The logical mind would be hiding Jesus, as god incarnate, because of him being  greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, malevolent, AND A BASTARD CHILD TO THE TRUE TRADITION OF THE HEBREW PEOPLE BECAUSE JOSEPH WAS NOT THE PATERNAL FATHER!

Who in their right mind would want to worship a primitive god concept that is truthfully described above?  Wait, i am sorry, the inept minds of Catholic Christians do. My bad.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.. Ok you're all eye witnesses to me writing blah blah blah blah blah blah blah  so you KNOW THAT I DID*


*except that none of you actually saw me write it. Someone may have hacked my account and wrote it.

[Randy Carson]

Randy, hello?

Why do you continue to LIE about your primitive Catholic faith? Huh?  The gospels WERE NOT EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS! 

No, seriously. I really appreciate the opportunity to post even MORE explanations of the Christian position for all to see. Keep those questions coming!

SIX REASONS TO ACCEPT THE GOSPELS AS EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS

I. Eyewitness Authority Is Inherent to the Gospels

The Gospel accounts are written as historical narratives. The life of Jesus is intertwined with historical events locating it geographically and historically. The Gospels repeatedly affirmed their own historical, eyewitness nature, mentioning key figures who served to validate the history of Jesus as eyewitnesses:

John 1:6-7
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

II. Eyewitness Authority Was Commissioned by Jesus

Jesus understood the eyewitness status of the Apostles. In fact, he commissioned them to grow the Kingdom on the basis of their eyewitness observations:

Luke 24:44-49
Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Acts 1:6-8
So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

III. Eyewitness Authority Was Affirmed By the Gospel Authors

The authors of the Gospels proclaimed their authority as eyewitnesses (or as chroniclers of the eyewitnesses). While some skeptics have attempted to disassociate the Biblical statements from the Gospel authors to refute the authorship of the Gospels, the earliest believers embraced the traditional authorship of the eyewitnesses (and we can also make good circumstantial cases for the traditional authorship). The Gospel authors (and their sources) repeatedly identified themselves as eyewitnesses:

1 Peter 5:1
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed…

2 Peter 1:16-17
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

1 John 1:1-3
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life â€" and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us â€" what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us…

John 21:24-25
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

IV. Eyewitness Authority Was Confirmed By the First Believers

The early believers and Church Fathers accepted the Gospel accounts as eyewitness documents. In fact, many Church fathers wrote about the Gospels. Papias, when describing the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, said, “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.” In addition, Papias, Ireneaus, Origen and Jerome affirmed the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel by the tax collector described in the account, written for the Hebrews in his native dialect and translated as he was able.

V. Eyewitness Authority Was Foundational to the Growth of the Church

It really shouldn’t surprise us that the authority of the Gospels was grounded in their eyewitness status. The eyewitness authority of the Apostles was key to the expansion of the early Church. The apostles were unified in the manner in which they proclaimed Christ. They repeatedly identified themselves, first and foremost, as eyewitnesses:

Acts 2:23-24, 32
“This man (Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him… God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.”

Acts 3:15
“You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.”

Acts 4:20
“For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard”

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.

Acts 10:39-42
“We are witnesses of everything he (Jesus) did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen â€" by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.”

VI. Eyewitness Authority Was Used to Validate New Testament Writings

Even Paul understood the importance of eyewitness authority. He continually referred to his own encounter with Jesus to establish the authenticity of his office and writings. Paul also directed his readers to other eyewitnesses who could corroborate his claims:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

Taken from:

The Case for the Eyewitness Status of the Gospel Authors
by J. Warner Wallace
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-case-for-the-eyewitness-status-of-the-gospel-authors/

[stromboli]

So basically your method is proving Harry Potter is true by quoting Harry Potter. Gotcha. Going to go mow the lawn now. Done here.

[Randy Carson]

So basically your method is proving Harry Potter is true by quoting Harry Potter. Gotcha. Going to go mow the lawn now. Done here.

It's funny you should ask...

Why the Claims About Jesus Are Not the Same as the Claims About Peter Pan
By J. Warner Wallace
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/why-the-claims-about-jesus-are-not-the-same-as-the-claims-about-peter-pan/

As a skeptic and new investigator of the Gospel accounts, my philosophical naturalism dictated what I was willing to accept from the Biblical authors. As I investigated the accounts, I recognized many of the locations and historical claims could be corroborated by archaeology, but this fact alone did not incline me to believe the Gospel accounts were true, especially when it came to their claims about the supernatural activities of Jesus (especially the Resurrection). The mere fact an account may be rooted in some form of true history doesn’t mean everything in the account is accurate or true. When Scottish novelist and playwright J. M. Barrie wrote the fictional story of Peter Pan, for example, he set the account in late Victorian London. A thousand years from now, archaeologists will certainly find archaeological evidence confirming the existence of London and may even find ancient accounts of other writers describing the Peter Pan story. But the archaeological or manuscript support confirming a portion of Pan’s story would not guarantee the authenticity of the entire account. The true existence of London does not corroborate the true existence of Peter, Wendy, Tinker Bell or the Lost Boys. So even though I discovered archaeology support for many of the historical claims of the Gospels, I still rejected the supernatural elements. My investigation of the Gospels would require me to move beyond the simple archaeology to investigate the authors themselves as eyewitnesses. Once I was done, I realized the claims about Jesus were not the same as the claims about Peter Pan:

The Authors of the Gospels Claimed to Be Eyewitnesses

There is a difference between the authors of the Gospels and J. M. Barrie, the author of Peter Pan. Barrie never wrote his story as a true claim about history from the perspective of an eyewitness. Instead, he first introduced the character of Peter Pan in a small section of The Little White Bird, a 1902 novel. He later adapted the character into a stage play for children and eventually the character appeared in a separate publication. All the while, Barrie never claimed to be writing true history as an eyewitness. The authors of the Gospels, on the other hand, repeatedly identified themselves as eyewitnesses:

2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

1 John 1:1,3
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life… we proclaim to you also

John 21:24-25
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

The Authors of the Gospels Can Be Tested As Eyewitnesses

In the end, the authors themselves must be tested for their reliability. There is a four-part template we use to test eyewitnesses in any criminal trial or investigation. If we can determine a witness was actually present to see what they reported, can be corroborated by some form of external evidence, has been honest and accurate over time, and has no ulterior motive or bias to tell a lie, we can consider the witness to be reliable. If we apply this four part template to J. M. Barrie, he is quickly exposed as an author of fiction (this shouldn’t surprise us given the fact he never claimed to be an eyewitness). When we apply this investigative template to the authors of the Gospels, however, they survive remarkably as reliable witnesses, especially when compared to other accurate historians of antiquity. I’ve written about this in Cold-Case Christianity, where I examined these four categories of eyewitness reliability and applied them to the Gospel authors.

The Authors of the Gospels Died As Eyewitnesses

J. M. Barrie and his publishers profited from the story of Peter Pan in a number of ways. The authors of the Gospels were not as fortunate. In fact, the eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus died for their claims without ever recanting their testimony. They suffered persecution for these accounts, and although there is evidence second generation Christians were tortured and forced to recant (as described in Pliny the Younger’s letter to Emperor Trajan), there is absolutely no evidence the original eyewitnesses ever recanted in such a way. On the contrary, there are numerous accounts describing the martyrdom of the eyewitnesses. These authors never enjoyed the success of a stage play or successful publication. Instead, they suffered for their claims, yet held firm to their accounts in spite of the tremendous pressure to change their testimony.

The case for the reliability of the Gospels is built on far more than simple archaeological support. It is built instead on the cumulative case for the reliability of the gospel eyewitnesses. The archeological evidence is one small part of this collective case. The story of Peter Pan is a fictional claim, the story of Jesus is an historical claim. As such, the Gospel accounts can be tested to see if they accurately describe the Jesus of history. The claims about Jesus are not the same as the claims about Peter Pan.

+++

The same may be said regarding Harry Potter. Done here.

[doorknob]

I have demonstrated the following sequence:

1. The texts of the gospels we have today are extremely accurate reconstructions of the original, inspired autograph manuscripts. We know what the authors wrote.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses. We know that the authors were present at the scene.
3. The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know that the authors were authoritative eyewitnesses.
4. The gospels were corroborated by non-biblical sources. We know that Jewish and Roman historians provide enemy attestation of key points from the gospels.

Now, you can choose to ignore this argument, prove it wrong or concede that I'm right thus far. That's up to you.

Still to come:

Are the gospel writers trustworthy? Can we believe what they wrote?

There's virtually no evidence of anything thing you just said. Actually there is much historical evidence that none of it happened and no such person as jesus existed. Jesus was a legend of the time and some one decided to make him a prophet/god. Extensive records were kept by Rome and not a single word was written about said events. That sounds a lot like a legend that never happened to me.

Stop believing every stupid thing the catholic church tells you to believe and look for the evidence on you're own. You'll find out there is none.

[reasonist]

Well, since this is the gospel thread, I venture to share some loving morsels from the bible that maybe some have forgotten already:

"And as for these enemies of mine  who didn't want me to be their king, bring them in and execute them right in front of me"
Luke 19:27                        Always that damn free will!

"So if your eye causes you to lust, cut it out and throw it away."
Matthew 5:29

"You cannot serve both god AND money."
Matthew 5:29            Take heed RCC!

"So if your hand or your foot (!) causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away."
Matthew 18:8

"You must love the lord your god with all your heart, all your souls and all your mind."
Matthew 23:37

"Fear god who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell."
Luke 12:5

" The master will return unannounced and unexpected and he will cut the slave (servant) into pieces and banish him with the unfaithful."   (The pieces?)
Luke 13:46

"I have come to divide people against each other."
Luke 13:57

I hope you all can feel the love...

[Mike Cl]

Well, since this is the gospel thread, I venture to share some loving morsels from the bible that maybe some have forgotten already:

"And as for these enemies of mine  who didn't want me to be their king, bring them in and execute them right in front of me"
Luke 19:27                        Always that damn free will!

"So if your eye causes you to lust, cut it out and throw it away."
Matthew 5:29

"You cannot serve both god AND money."
Matthew 5:29            Take heed RCC!

"So if your hand or your foot (!) causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away."
Matthew 18:8

"You must love the lord your god with all your heart, all your souls and all your mind."
Matthew 23:37

"Fear god who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell."
Luke 12:5

" The master will return unannounced and unexpected and he will cut the slave (servant) into pieces and banish him with the unfaithful."   (The pieces?)
Luke 13:46

"I have come to divide people against each other."
Luke 13:57

I hope you all can feel the love...

This few quotes gives me goose bumps of pure love! 

[Hakurei Reimu]

"breathing life" = "initiating that process"

Poetry is not your thing, is it?

If God can initiate the process of life, he can re-initiate that process in a dead body.

Not necessarily. The ability to re-start life does not follow from its ability to start it. You can start a well-functioning car, but you can't start a car with its engine missing. You can start a solid rocket motor, but you can't re-start it. There are plenty of processes that can only be set in motion once and only once.

I studied this subject in college (note the avatar?), but it's been awhile.

If there is no God capable of raising him from the dead exists, the his chances of being raised are decidedly worse.

Well, first you have to show that he rose from the dead. You haven't even shown the possiblity yet, let alone its plausibility.

They did realize this. Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

The thing is, they didn't even convince all christians of this. The docetics didn't even believe that Jesus was a real man, but rather that his appearances on earth (pre- and post-resurrection) were illusions. The references in John to Jesus being "in the flesh" (a phrase repeated often) is a dig against the docetics.

For crying out loud, even some people back in the early days of christianity didn't believe that Jesus was a real person, and you have the gall to call any doubter today devoid of reason?

Census Edict for Roman Egypt, 104 C.E.:

Alternate translation:

So, Hakurei Reimu, would you like to run that by me again about how a census would not and could never be conducted as described" in the gospels???

And how the gospel "must be a fabrication by someone who is ignorant of the logistics of running a kingdom or empire"?

You still lose. Both translations refer to people returning to their proper places of residences. You know, the places where they make their livelihoods and such. People living in the boonies may need to be counted in cities, but if you hail from a town, you don't have to move. According to you, Nazareth was a town, and as such it would be the town where Jesus's father should be counted.

Unless Nazareth wasn't a town.

Once again, the authors of the New Testament are shown to be accurate in the smallest details. Here are two examples I've provided so far (with more to come):

1. The Pilate Stone confirms the existence of Pontius Pilate.
2. The Edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus confirms the need to travel to Bethlehem.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.

[Hydra009]

So basically your method is proving Harry Potter is true by quoting Harry Potter. Gotcha. Going to go mow the lawn now. Done here.

Well, it was an eyewitness account.  An eyewitness account of magic by someone who may or may not have actually been there.  I'm sure the courts would be just fine with that.