That’s a very strange video. The apostles were religious fanatics willing to throw down their lives for their faith before their savior was executed. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/how-new-testament-was-created/ The official accounts were written down 20+ years after the events portrayed. That’s ample time for someone to forget details and fabricate events. The life expectancy at that time was something like 35 years so most of the people who could object to discrepancies were dead anyway.
20 years isn’t long for ancient writings. A lot of history we have from that time is written hundreds of years after the fact, while this was merely decades. And it’s pretty consistent. For legends to form typically, generations had to pass, yet the earliest records show Christians always believing that Jesus rose from the dead, leaving little room for speculation or evolution. Contrast this to Marian dogmas where things get added on like the perpetual virginity, her being sinless, assumption of Mary, etc, which are small details developing over centuries. Or St Patrick and the snakes. While the Gospel accounts just pop up at around the same time close to Jesus’s life on earth.
Secondly - that 35 year number is flawed. Averages are calculated by adding up the lifespans and dividing the total number by amount of statistics. People weren’t dying at 35. Instead, there was a high infant mortality rate. Caesar was assassinated at 55 years old, Tacitus died at 64. Gordian I lived to be 79, Celsus to 75.
The knowledge of how God became man and died for us
That’s faith, by definition distinct from knowledge.
You have faith in your car based on the knowledge that it’ll get you to your destination
That’s a linguistic bait-and-switch. Your example has nothing to do with religious faith as a basis for conviction.
I am convicted in my faith by the evidence
You’re not convincing anyone by misusing words.
Here, let me demonstrate: I have hard evidence that God doesn’t exist. My evidence is faith.
My evidence isn’t faith. My faith is based in historical fact.
So why are historians not generally Christian?
Because a lot of people these days aren’t generally Christian.
Knowledge of how that story came to be for once.
And tell me this: How did it come to be?
some bronze age mental patients got in a circle and started writing
So this literally happened?
That’s a very strange video. The apostles were religious fanatics willing to throw down their lives for their faith before their savior was executed. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/how-new-testament-was-created/ The official accounts were written down 20+ years after the events portrayed. That’s ample time for someone to forget details and fabricate events. The life expectancy at that time was something like 35 years so most of the people who could object to discrepancies were dead anyway.
20 years isn’t long for ancient writings. A lot of history we have from that time is written hundreds of years after the fact, while this was merely decades. And it’s pretty consistent. For legends to form typically, generations had to pass, yet the earliest records show Christians always believing that Jesus rose from the dead, leaving little room for speculation or evolution. Contrast this to Marian dogmas where things get added on like the perpetual virginity, her being sinless, assumption of Mary, etc, which are small details developing over centuries. Or St Patrick and the snakes. While the Gospel accounts just pop up at around the same time close to Jesus’s life on earth.
Secondly - that 35 year number is flawed. Averages are calculated by adding up the lifespans and dividing the total number by amount of statistics. People weren’t dying at 35. Instead, there was a high infant mortality rate. Caesar was assassinated at 55 years old, Tacitus died at 64. Gordian I lived to be 79, Celsus to 75.