The New Testament is Historically Accurate

OK, I am going to reiterate my contentions before moving on to my rebuttals:1. Embarrassing detailsThe religion of the day, Judaism, was all the Jewish people had known for 2,000 years. Both Jesus and the disciples, who were the co-founders of the new religion, would have had a lot more converts if they didn't leave in the fact that Jesus said that they should eat His flesh, drink His blood, and stop practicing their old religion. They never liked the idea, so the killed Him. If it did not work the first time, wouldn't you change some things in the story unless you wanted it to be accurate...2. Historical detailsThese are things that people could check up on. Details. Look at my opponent's contention above... go on look^^^. He even uses those details. Where did Joseph and Mary live before Jesus was born? Who buried Jesus? Who saw Jesus first? If you were trying to make a fake story, you wouldn't use so many details that could be disproved. Look at Star Wars, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." No the story of Jesus starts with:"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)" Look at the details. All of those could be discounted and the story of Jesus would be proved fraud, but Luke left them in because they were true.3. MartyrdomAdmittedly, Peter's martyrdom is not in the Bible, that was poorly worded, but John's, Stephen's, and many others are.Now for my opponent's "contradictions"1.Where did Joseph and Mary live before the birth of Jesus?Text: Luke 2:1"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. AndJoseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)...Text: Matthew 2:1-2, 11, 22-23"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him....And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him....But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth."Answer: This one is easy. It only says that Joseph lived in Nazareth. It does not mention him living anywhere else beforeJesus's birth. It says that Joseph lived in Bethlehem afterJesus's birth, but not before So there is no contradiction at all.2. Who asked for the best seats in heaven?Text: Mark 10:35-37And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.Text: Matthew 20:20-21Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.Answer: It never says that one incident happened instead of the other. These could have been totally separate instances. Maybe the sons asked, Jesus said "No.", so Momma got involved. Again, no real contradiction3. Who Buried Jesus?I'm just going to bother going over Joseph and Nicodemus vs. the Jews and their rulersText: John 19:38-43"Joseph of Arimathaea ... took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus.... Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus..."Text: Acts 13:27-29"For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre"Answer: "They" in the original Greek is the word for "Jews." We don't know how many people put Jesus to rest in the tomb, but we can all accept at least those we know of were Jews. So there is no real contradiction.4. Was Jesus taken to Caiphas or Annas first?Text: Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53, Luke 22:54"And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.""And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.""Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house."Text: John 18:13"And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year."Answer: I don't see a contradiction in any of that, at all. The first verses just say that He was taken to Ciaphas, but in no particular order pertaining to Annas, but it does tell us in John that they took Him to Annas first; so I guess Jesus went from Annas to Ciaphas and it simply wasn't recorded in the previous books. Also, notice that in the first texts, Jesus was taken to Caiaphas's house. "brought him into the high priest's house" "and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes." "led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled." Annas could have been in the same house as Caiaphas and they simply stopped by so Annas could say "Blasphemer!" to Jesus on the way to say Caiaphas.As for the last two, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the NT is historically accurate or not. They also use the OT more than the NT to make a point. I will not address them because they are not applicable in this situation. Plus I don't have many charcters left.Summary:1. Embarrassing Details: The writers were telling the truth. We know this because they added embarrassing details that would have made the spread of Christianity harder than it already was. (i.e. hard to understand passages, bucking religion tradition, etc.) The writers also made themselves look foolish and bad, even though they were the ones spreading the religion. That would have made things more difficult. Only a writer that was telling the truth would add in those things.2. Historical Details: The writers of the NT use several historical, geographical, and personal details that would have made it easy to disprove the Bible unless the writers were telling the truth. More then 40 of these rules have been confirmed by historians. The others have not been disproved.3. Martyrdom: The Bible tells of many that died for their faith; several of these are confirmed by secular sources. They had nothing to gain by creating a new religion, nothing but pain, suffering, and death, so they must have truly believed. After all, they had first-hand knowledge of Jesus. They were the only ones who could have truly known the truth, and they died for it.Sources:http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...http://www.biblegateway.com...The BibleI Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Chapter Ten