The Qur'an does not give an accurate picture of the Historical Jesus

I appreciate PRO’s comments this round. I am finding this debate quite enjoyable. I will address the points made presently. The Bible No, the bible is not an authoritative source regarding the details of the historical Jesus. As I pointed out above, there are numerous things in the Bible that contradict modern scholarship. I also demonstrated, and PRO confirmed with his discussion of the order of creation, at least parts of the bible are likely symbolic. This, in conjunction with the fact that there are some who believe it to be historical [1][2], illustrate the point that we don’t know if parts of the Bible are metaphorical or not without external verification. PRO has accused me of referencing the Old Testament in a discussion of a New Testament character. First of all, I don’t see how this is an issue if ALL scripture is inspired of God [3], but more important is that PRO’s claim is false; something that is obvious by a simple reading of my 2nd round comments. I provided examples from both the New and the Old Testament. However, if PRO demands a more thorough discussion of the New Testament, we can discuss how Jesus was able to see the whole world from a mountain [4], how Paul seems to think that Asians and Native Americans had access to the Gospels [5], or how Paul seems to think that a dead seed will germinate [6]. Don’t even get me started on Revelations… These, and many others, are reason to doubt every word of the Bible, and to demand external verification. One more point PRO seems to be trying to hit home is that the bible is written by many different authors, over a long period of time. Something he seems to think bolsters his case. However, we know for a fact that the authors of parts of the bible had access to previous writings [7], and in some cases, based their accounts on them [8]. For instance, it is well known that the authors of Mark and Luke based their accounts on the book attributed to Matthew, as well as another document known as “Q” [9][10][11]. So, again, the Bible cannot be accepted as the sole source to paint a historical picture. Legends PRO has tried to counter my point about how writings from decades after an event may not be accurate. He claims that it takes at least two generations to form a legend. I tried to verify his claim, but I couldn’t find a reference anywhere, but it doesn’t matter. I am not claiming that the Jesus story turned into a legend between his alleged death and the point at which the story was written down. My point is simply that, we have no reason to fully trust such writings. It is well established that eyewitness testimony is not reliable [12][13][14][15]. What we have in the cases I noted in the previous round is not even eyewitness testimony; it is a report of what someone else allegedly witnessed. It is hearsay. Therefore, we not only lack proper reason to accept the claims, we have sufficient reason to dismiss them. Why Weren’t Inaccuracies Corrected? PRO has claimed that the accuracy of the Gospels can be verified by the fact that any errors would have been corrected shortly after writing. This is no more than post hoc, wishful thinking. We know the Gospels were written long after the alleged events took place. We know eyewitness accounts are not always reliable. We also know that there were numerous Gospels that did not make it into the modern day Bible [16]. The fact is that there were numerous writings floating around at that time, all of which added something slightly different to the story. It wasn’t until centuries later that church leaders got together to decide which ones they wanted to put together into an “official version” [17][18]. The bottom line is that while the writings were written decades after the events the chronicle, there is no way to know when they were widely distributed or if anyone alive at that point would have actually known if they were mistaken. Also, what is now accepted by Christians as history was actually decided on by a committee made up of Catholic bishops [18]. To claim that they must be right because they would have been corrected is to not understand the history of the Bible. Did I Drop a Point? PRO has accused me of not addressing the points he made in the second round. However, he is mistaken. His arguments were based on a biblical picture of Jesus, not on a historical one. Once I demonstrated that the Bible is not on its own an acceptable source for developing such a picture, all of his points, including the opinions of various theologians he cited based on the Bible, become irrelevant. A Wrap Up Once again, I have demonstrated that the bible is not an acceptable source for a historical investigation. I have answered PRO’s points, even the ones he claims I didn’t. On the other hand, PRO has barely mentioned that Qur’an, and has not even addressed any extra-biblical accounts of the life of Jesus. Even though PRO himself set this debate up as a comparison between the Qur’anic Jesus and the historical Jesus, he has focused almost entirely on the Biblical Jesus, a character that need not even be a part of the conversation. Sources [1]http://www.gallup.com... [2]http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com... [3]http://biblehub.com... [4]https://www.biblegateway.com... [5]https://www.biblegateway.com... [6]https://www.biblegateway.com... [7]http://www.quora.com... [8]http://www.biblica.com... [9]http://www.bc.edu... [10]http://www.ichthus.info... [11] http://www.hypotyposeis.org... [12]http://www.simplypsychology.org... [13]http://news.sciencemag.org... [14]http://www.visualexpert.com... [15]http://agora.stanford.edu... [16]http://www.sacred-texts.com... [17]http://www.tertullian.org... [18]http://www.catholicbasictraining.com...