***Question: does "reputable" automatically disqualify any scholar that doesn't believe he existed?***
No. You will find scholars that doubt the historical existence of Julius Ceaser - but not reputable ones. The historicity of Jesus is accepted fact by the majority of historians and biblical scholars.
***In other words, the fact that the gospels are accurate is accepted by everyone except those who don't accept it???***
No. It is mainly people with agendas who will not accept the accuracy of the Bible.
" The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.
There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the wellknown Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae:, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! In addition to the two excellent MSS of the fourth century mentioned above, which are the earliest of some thousands known to us, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from 100 to 200 years earlier still. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1931, consist of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contained most of the New Testament writings. One of these, containing the four Gospels with Acts, belongs to the first half of the third century; another, containing Paul's letters to churches and the Epistle to the Hebrews, was copied at the beginning of the third century; the third, containing Revelation, belongs to the second half of the same century."
From : THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: THEIR DATE AND ATTESTATION
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc02.htm
***Then how do you explain the fact that many others (a majority, for all I know) read the same exact text, in the same exact context and come to a completely different conclusion?***
If you want to count heads, the historic position of the Church for 2000 years has been that the Genesis record is literal and historical.
***That's just circular bootstrapping. The book is inerrant because the authenticator of the book has unimpeachable knowledge. How do we know he has unimpeachable knowledge? Because the inerrant book tells us so.***
Every major system of though is allowed certain primary, self referential assumptions. Without these there could be no basis of rational communication. Imagine if I asked you to prove every statement you made was true - then additionally asked you to prove that "truth" was true, or that "truth" existed, etc... No, you assume (rightfully) that there is such a thing as truth - and you are allowd to do so without proving it.
The primary assumption of historic Christianity is that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
***Well, given that this very post is the fullest discussion of my opinions on this thread, I doubt that this statement is at all accurate.***
As an American, who grants your your rights?
That may be so about Julius Caesar, but there are some legitimate historians and scholars who question the historicity and true nature of Jesus.
*** *** ***
No. It is mainly people with agendas who will not accept the accuracy of the Bible.
" The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors,...
That is an interesting piece on biblical history. It does appear to establish the faithful preservation of the text. But it does only date from a number of years after the fact which it addresses. Even if I were to agree that the scholarship is sufficient to establish that the text has remained the same since that time, it is impossible to state, based solely on this material, that what was preserved is actually what was said, however.
*** *** ***
If you want to count heads, the historic position of the Church for 2000 years has been that the Genesis record is literal and historical.
The historic position is irrelevant, because most or all of those historical personages had none of the up-to-date knowledge from science and other fields to inform their opinion of the world. In other words, they approached the text in a different context than modern readers. (For example, historically, the church believed the Sun revolved around the earth and, therefore, the terms "rising" and "setting" of the sun was viewed literally. That is, until science changed the context and then the text was read figuratively.)
*** *** ***
Every major system of though is allowed certain primary, self referential assumptions. Without these there could be no basis of rational communication. Imagine if I asked you to prove every statement you made was true - then additionally asked you to prove that "truth" was true, or that "truth" existed, etc... No, you assume (rightfully) that there is such a thing as truth - and you are allowd to do so without proving it.
The primary assumption of historic Christianity is that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
True, and if all we were discussing was theology, then you get your primary, self-referential assumption. But if you are using the words of Christ as support for the historicity of the ex nihilo creation of man, you don't get that primary, self-referential assumption, because you are making a historical and scientific statement, and "assume there is a God as set out in the Bible" is not a valid presumption in either history or science.
*** *** ***
As an American, who grants your your rights?
In what sense? Pragmatically? Legally? Theoretically? Realistically?