Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[leroy]

If you look at the article there is massive evidence that he (ALEXANDER THE GRATE) was a real person both from historians and archeology.

[/QUOTE]
Yes according to normal and reasonable standards Alexander was a real historical person, but if you adopt extreme and unreasonable skepticism like Richard Career does, you would have to reject the existence of Alexander as a historical person .

 

[Subduction Zone]

First: that is a Straw man , I NEVER SAID THAT Mark Luke and Matt are independnent, I said that John Paul and Mark are independnent

Second: your “filter thing” doesn’t change the fact that the sources are independent, all its shows is that some guy from Rome liked* some documents and dislike others.

For example if 2 witnesses saw a car accident, then you would have 2 independent sources, this would still be true even if in 400 years someone else decides to put both testimonies in a single book

My mistake. But an error is not a strawman. And since they went through the same filter they are still dependent. And John may be partially based upon Mark, I have heard it argued, it is merely not as clear as Matthew and Luke that outright copied from Mark at times.

And yes, the filter does make them no longer independent. Denying a fact does not make it go away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol...no friend, I'm not really grasping at straws at all. I understand some of the consequences of "free will". It's were in a situation of genuine freedom, some people will do evil and then influence others to follow, and soon it gathers momentum, and becomes established. It happens over and over in history.

(Speaking more broadly yet, evil is typical in human history: The Khmer Rouge and the National Socialist Worker's Party (Germany 1920s,30s) are not unusual. Atrocities are not unusual in history. Slavery is not unusual (and continues today also) These are all only typical in history.)

Free will is another failed argument. Did Satan know that God exists?

 

[halbhh]

Free will is another failed argument. Did Satan know that God exists?

Free will is another failed argument?

heh heh. You are pulling my leg maybe.

Free Will --"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."
Oxford Languages

Put in simple terms, the ability to act independently, and do what you choose.

If we have freedom to act, then some will sometimes choose to harm others for their own seeming gain. That's 'evil'.

Ergo, 'evil' is the absolutely inevitable outcome of Free Will. But, because we have this freedom to choose and act, then Love also becomes possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Free will is another failed argument?

heh heh. You are pulling my leg maybe.

Free Will --"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."
Oxford Languages

Put in simple terms, the ability to act independently, and do what you choose.

If we have freedom to act, then some will sometimes choose to harm others for their own seeming gain. That's 'evil'.

Ergo, 'evil' is the absolutely inevitable outcome of Free Will. But, because we have this freedom to choose and act, then Love also becomes possible.

People ascribe too much power to freewill. You dodged my question, an indication that you know you are wrong. Satan knew about God better than any person would since he regularly talked to him. They even had bets with each other where they used people as pawns. But consistent logic is dangerous to any religious belief so I can see why you jumped the track a bit.

 

[leroy]

Mark is euhemrerizing Jesus. To euhemrerize a fictional demigod you place him on Earth, give him a family and have him do miracles and interact with people and teach them spiritual laws. This is a common thing in this age.
Mark took Paul's words and used every chance to create events and people. Like the last supper which wasn't a supper in Paul.
Mark gave Jesus parents and the mention of John becomes biological brother rather than spiritual.

So Paul was clearly and unambiguously talking about “a spiritual brother” but mark decided that it would have been cooler to transform him in to a biological brother, for some strange and mysterious reason…… yea sure that seems the most plausible explanation .


You are making many assumptions

1 that Mark copied from Paul

2 That Paul meant spiritual brother

3 That Mark decided to change spiritual brother for biological brother for some unknown purpose

Anyway I am confused

Did John also copied from Mark? Was James a historical person?

 

[leroy]

Why not look over some scholarship yourself? There is a chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that is virtually impossible he wasn't using Paul. The events lining up like that are far too improbable.
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier

.

With your own words…………what is so impossible/imporable about it?

 

[leroy]

eroy said: ↑
Can you give an example of any ancient myth that has nearly as many correct historical demographic, historical and political details as the gospels do?

Yes. The quran.



The quran gets the exact same kind of things correct. Names, places, events,...

care to expalin and justify your claim?which historical facts does the koran gets correct?

 

[leroy]

Euh.... I just told you.

They are simply repeating a religious claim. They aren't "corroborating" anything.

So ??? my pointis that Peter did made that religious claim

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

care to expalin and justify your claim?which historical facts does the koran gets correct?

Read it.

What, did you think the story of the Quran takes place in middle earth filled with fictional mythical beasts or something?

Just like the bible, it includes mentions of real places and real events involving real people which can be historically verified by independent sources.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So ??? my pointis that Peter did made that religious claim

So............................................................ repeating claims is not the same as corroborating the content of said claims.


What's the problem here?

 

[nPeace]

The authors of the Gosples where biased because their goal was to promote Christianity, but this is not a big deal, most ancient documents are biased and scholars know how to deal with it.

Bias - prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
What is wrong with promoting something you believe to be true? That is not bias Leroy.
Also, if that were the case, that would make you biased, when you made your OP.

Bias, is as defined. If you are choosing to do something, just because you are in disfavor with something else - not because you view it as wrong, but simply because you are prejudiced against it.
Did the writers do that? If you answer in the affirmative that places the burden of proof on you, to demonstrate that they did that.
What's your answer?

Information that is “too good to be true” should be taken with more skepticism.

Information that is too good to be true? From whose perspective?
If the majority view is that something is too good to be true, as opposed to the minority view, that does not mean the majority view is correct. Are you in disagreement with that?

In the case of the gospels things like fullfied prophecies or miracles are “too good to be true” so the standard of evidence for accepting this claim should be greater than the standard for accepting a “neutral claim”

I don't understand that.
Someone's limited understanding does not make something "too good to be true".
Millions of scientists do not think miracles, or the concept of a creator God, is "too good to be true".
I don't understand that Leroy.
People will disbelieve, no matter how strong the evidence is, for something they don't want.

Biased, doesn’t mean “wrong”… it simply means that you should be more skeptil and apply a higher standard of evidence when it comment to claims that are “too good to be true”……………..usually historians require 2 independent sources in order to establish as fact something that is too good to be true……… but we Christians can meet this standard, the core of Christianity is based on historical facts that can be verified by multiple independent sources.

Okay, so your use of the word bias is different to what I understand, and what the dictionary says.
That definition is not bias. Perhaps you are thinking of skeptical. Or perhaps wary... but not biased.
Also, you are thinking of the perspective of persons considering historical documents. Not the writers themselves.
So you have no evidence of bias on the part of the writers. You are looking at our own biases, which yes, does interfere with our view of evidence from investigation.

 

[halbhh]

You dodged my question

I was directly responding to your post by addressing the primary thing anything else depends entirely on --What is Free Will, and what does it entail.

If you rush past that part, then you could end up 'dodging the question' potentially. If you totally agree that is what Free Will is, and that's entirely how it operates, then you can say "I agree. So..." etc. (Also, I think that the one you referred to as knowing God more than others didn't know God that well. Perhaps because he was instead caught up in other concerns that were more important to him, it may be. Be cautious of assumptions, if you want to understand the topics you address.)

 

[nPeace]

You get first place in dodge ball.


There's no strawman there. It's just an illustration to clarify what "bias" is all about and how it affects ones beliefs and opinions.

You refuse to answer the question concerning which book would give you the most accurate information, because you know where it will lead to.

No. Actually your analogies are so terribly formed, they make for very poor logic... and yet somehow, they seem to make sense to you.
That was your poorest yet.

Let me put it as simple as this.
That rules out #1. Then I simple have to use what is known, and #2 sinks like lead in quicksand, with his seething hateful lies.

 

[oldbadger]

I did not pick out just one law. I stopped reading at the false claim. I picked out three laws, one of them a Commandment. I could have kept going with silly laws and yet no law against slavery.

Ask your question properly without a falsehood and I will respond.

Hey, I just saw that OT law and remembered that conversation from years back.

Now you have a nice day, ok?

 

[oldbadger]

Here's why:
When God did give really basic laws, the 'ten commandments' which are so clear, and not hard to follow with a bit of will:

Doable Laws:
Don't murder.
Don't steal.
Don't seduce your neighbor's spouse.
Don't worship idols (and of course, later extra warnings, repeated to say: don't sacrifice your children in fire to idols)

Then the actual outcome was that the Israelites broke these laws over and over and over.

I think that Jesus wanted all but the sacrificial laws to be reinstated and followed.

Matthew {5:17} Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. {5:18} For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled. {5:19} Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them,] the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

and:-
Matthew {9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice: ....................

Obviously some of these laws are outdated now, such as the (anti) transgender, shellfish, clothing, trans-sexual and (anti) Gay laws which so many Christians cling to, whilst ignoring the OT Poor Laws completely. (my apologies to such as the Salvation Army).

 

[lukethethird]

No Luke..... you call it special pleading.
Your redirection towards Clarke Kent or anywhere else ...away from the subject matter cannot help you.

Separation of history from supernatural is no different from separating truth from fiction in a deposition or statement. The fact that the story of yogi bear (or whatever) ios a complete fiction cannot make any difference to a totally separate case.

And of course you are right when you say that's what I do my best to do.... agreed.

Now...... did you want to say something about the thread title? Or do you want to talk about, say, batman?

The gospels and Superman follow basic plot structure, they're stories. To say that we can't garner history form reading Superman but that we can from reading the gospels is special pleading, so good luck with that.

 

[oldbadger]

The gospels and Superman follow basic plot structure, they're stories. To say that we can't garner history form reading Superman but that we can from reading the gospels is special pleading, so good luck with that.

You still watch Superman?
Fair enough .......

But to be serious, can I ask.. do you accept that John the Baptist existed.?? Do you accept that, say, the Great Temple did exist?

Yes? No?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Actually your analogies are so terribly formed, they make for very poor logic... and yet somehow, they seem to make sense to you.
That was your poorest yet.

Uhu, uhu....

You make no sense.
It's an illustration of how bias of an author can and will affect his writings concerning a certain subject he is biased about.

This is literally what bias is all about.

The only reason I used the Maradona analogy, is because from experience I know that theists tend to see things clearer when it concerns common subjects instead of their religion.

I also know from a experience that theists will tend to damn the analogy or dodge it if and when they realize that answering the obvious will backfire on their religious argument.
You are a prime example of this.

Let me put it as simple as this.
That rules out #1.

It does not.
And the very article you link to, actually explains why it does not. See the section concerning the limitations. There's all kinds of motives for including embarrassing details or story lines.

In the case of Maradonna, there's plenty to go on. Like him scoring the winning goal against England using his hands. Or his cocaine abuse. "poor Maradonna, so misunderstood or influenced by bad people".

None of this takes away the bias of all 3 candidate authors. Because yes, even the one who's impartial, has a bias. His bias is towards evidence and accuracy.

As I said, the analogy was an illustration to clarify what bias is all about and how it will affect what is written down and how things are being presented.

All 3 will include cocaine abuse and "the hand of god" goal against england. Yet the reader will walk away with different interpretations / explanations of these events.

As usual, the point is flying over your head.

 

[leroy]

And yes, the filter does make them no longer independent. Denying a fact does not make it go away.

Just because you said so… sorry I have bad memory I forgot that we already agreed that I will no longer rely on scholars, next time I will simply ask you