Hello Joseph, thanks for replying.

Let me begin by affirming what we've said in other threads: we are both believers, and we're discussing as friends.

In my mind, this is the kind of discussion two friends would have over coffee. It's enjoyable to discuss and good intellectual practice to hash our ideas about a bit.

You said:

Kyle, I have read much of what you’ve written and then I read the following which is absolute nonsense. There is evidence and It’s irrefutable although inconclusive.

My friend, it only presents the evidence of history.

Multiple, independent ancient historians recorded who wrote the Gospels and when. Many are quite early.

It is not "nonsense" to listen to the voices of history.

You said:

"Kyle, Restating something is not proof. What “mythology” have you studied from all cultures in the world. Literacy affects everything, ask any anthropologist, it’s nonsense to think otherwise."

Literacy isn't as important as you might think.

Again, let me appeal to Dr. Kenneth Bailey's extensive work among oral cultures -- ones who exist today, who aren't literate but recall things through oral tradition.

He found they are able to remember words with precision even across multiple generations. Oral cultures employ unique techniques lost to the literate world to remember with precision. One key aspect is the communal nature of it: it is not one person remembering, but an entire community, and they keep each other in check. If one person starts distorting it, or repeats it incorrectly, the community is able to correct them, and is expected to do so.

You said:

You said:

"Yes, in Israel, the scriptures did evolve to support a nomadic tribe that was subject to tremendous strife. How many people were eyewitnesses to the burning bush? Not many? Is it a myth?"

I'm familiar with the claims that the Scriptures evolved; what I haven't seen is evidence.

From our earliest scrolls and artifacts, the OT Scriptures are constant. The documents weren't evolving with successive generations.

The Dead Sea Scrolls record a few attempted distortions, but that's the case in point: the distortions are one-offs, an attempt here or there to change things, while the main text is consistent through the ages. (This is a bit of an oversimplification, but nonetheless is accurate).

As for Moses and the burning bush, it's true that only Moses and God were present. He doesn't try to pretend otherwise.

But the calling God gave to him in the bush is confirmed by his actions thereafter. God did indeed bless and use him as the leader to extract Israel from Egypt.

You said:

"Kyle, if the eyewitness is not the scribe why can you propose eyewitnesses determine what is written especially since they would never actually know???"

Because books weren't written to be stored on a shelf, as we do today.

An entire village might only have one book -- a single copy of the Scriptures. They didn't have houses full of bookshelves bearing books no one has read.

That one copy of the Scriptures was preserved with extreme care -- they wouldn't touch it by hand, lest their hand oils degrade the pages. They used wooden pointers to hover over the words as they read, and they turned the scroll by wooden handles carved big enough to be turned without the hand touching the pages.

They read from these Scriptures every Sabbath at the minimum, if not every day. The entire village knew these Scriptures.

That's the kind of culture we're talking about, my friend.

If someone brought them a copy of the Book of Matthew, you can expect the same kind of care, and the same kind of village reading.

The local faith leader wouldn't tuck the book away on a bookshelf. It would be communally read from every week. Everyone would know what it said.

Therefore, if what it said didn't match the memories of the eye-witnesses, you can expect you'd hear about it.

Jesus canvased all of Israel during His ministry. He strove to visit every single town and village. The people knew Him. They experienced Him.

These were not Gospels written in a void.

They were written and accepted among the very people who had met Jesus.

You said:

"Oral traditions are strong but Rabbi’s were expected to mold the message"

If the rabbi is telling people they didn't see what they saw, you can bet they aren't going to agree with him.

That would be a rapid way for a rabbi to lose his influence among the people.

You said:

"Kyle, I am questioning Jesus existence, only your hypothesis. Specifically, I am referring to the hundreds of years of quibbling of church elders who routinely fought and contradicted each other. Origen was prolific and then effectively ostracized I believe on two different occasions after his death."

The hundreds of years of quibbling didn't alter the Scriptures at all.

We have fragments of manuscripts going all the way to the lifetime of Polycarp, who studied under John the Apostle personally.

These fragments match the later manuscripts. The story wasn't being altered by the quibbling.

You said:

"Kyle, Actually, despite a couple hundred years of persecution, Rome gave up, adopted and corrupted Christianity. And then consider the changes from Eastern Orthodox, Syriac, etc. It applies, go look."

Again, we have extensive manuscript evidence from before this time.

The manuscripts from the persecution period match those from the later centuries.

They didn't use power to pervert the message.

You said:

"Kyle, the evidence is overwhelming how church elders changed Christianity. Rome aligned bishops conveniently forgot about non-violence being core to Jesus ministry."

Indeed. They added violence when Jesus proclaimed love.

Yet they didn't alter the Scriptures. Because of this, we can check their actions by the Scriptures and realize where they went astray.

Luther's entire point in the Reformation was to rid Christianity of all the distortions that had grown up over the centuries and go back to the pure words of Scripture, the way Christianity was at the beginning.

The Reformation is the original Christianity, re-formed.

At least, that was the intent at the inception.

You said:

"Kyle, you are well studied in apologetics, not history."

If apologetics is done right, there's no difference between apologetics and history.

I'm appealing to real history at every point, here -- what the church fathers knew, what the earliest manuscripts say, what the ancient historians recorded about who wrote the Gospels and when.

If apologetics is ignoring history, it's failing.

You said:

"We can quit here, be well and I wish you well. Namaste"

Likewise! I wish you the best, my friend.

I love these kinds of conversations.