Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[shunyadragon]

I like how so many 20th century people know all the facts, that they state so dogmatically they know that historians who are known to be such, did not write history, but myth.
Why do we need historians of the past, when we have all these 20th century "historians".

Needs clarification. Sarcasm noted, because 20th century historians do claim to 'know all the facts.' Historians are historians, some specialize in contemporary history, some ancient Middle East history. Historians use archaeology, ancient text lake the Bible, and other texts going back to the first known texts such as the Sumerians tablets. As more archaeology and texts are found the knowledge of history evolves. Facts individual discoveries and texts and the knowledge evolves based on the facts presently known, and not 'all facts.'

The academic history is independent of religious beliefs, and consider religious claims such as miracles in the context of religious history of what people believe, and not facts of history.

 

[rational experiences]

No.

Documents never accounted for what mass of energy gone. What mass stone converted into it how much gas heavens was gone. As you never knew what it used to be.

Origin was never known.

 

[joelr]

The reason why I am only mentioning James the brother of Jesus is because I want to focus on a specific argument.

Carriers skepticism is just too crazy.

Not only is Carrier's skepticism not "crazy" he isn't skeptic. He's doing history exactly how it's supposed to be done. Jesus fits into a literary group of demigods who are ALL not real. Imagining that this one myth is an exception is not justified. What about this can you not get.
Other earlier historians held assumptions that Jesus was a real man and later myths were written about him. Carrier, in doing a Jesus historicity study (the first since 1926) realized the assumptions were terrible and in past years scholars just left it alone because often academia is funded by people who would not be pleased with people saying Jesus was a myth. Carrier is not bound to a University so he can say what he finds to be true.

1 Paul Meant “spiritual brother”

We cannot know for sure.

2 Mark copied from Paul, but he changed to biological brother for some mysterious reason (why woudl he copy form paul, if he was going to change stuff anyway? if he is writtign science Fiction, why not inventign all? what is the point of copying from Paul)?)

These are strange questions? First writing fictional biographies for fictional characters was something that Greek writers were trained in. Although Mark clearly understood how to write myths as noted by his frequent use of ring structure, inversions and other devices he needed a story. Christians assumed he was told the actual story of Jesus. Since there is no actual story of Jesus the demigod with God-powers he had to find an outline.

This is why he uses narratives from several OT stories as well as Paul's letters.
But the Epistles are vague and have no earthly Jesus so he works with what he has. The creation of the last supper is one obvious example. Jesus tells Paul a message for future Christians and uses a body/bread metaphor and Mark changes it into an actual meal with 12 disciples sitting around and breaking bread.
He also creates a family, events, miracles and more. This is why he would give Jesus a brother.
I already told you he is not writing science fiction. Your repeatedly saying this shows another aspect you do not understand. These are myths. Just savior resurrecting demigods alone the Egyptians had one, the Thracians had one, the Syrians had one, the Persians had one, and so on. Every culture had religious scripture and they were often being updated as new ideas arrived.

Mark wrote a gospel for this new Jewish version of the resurrecting savior god. Matthew likely thought he could do it better and re-wrote it with additions, same with Luke and John.

3 the other authors copied from Mark and didn’t what to correct marks mistake

There is a good article from Bible.com summarizing the current Christian scholarship on the Synoptic problem. Yes a few errors were accidently taken from Mark.
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

4 Josephus was just repeating what he heard somewhere (which implies that other sources also identified James as the brother of jesus)

Ehrman cleaned up the later additions to Josephus words and there was nothing about James. Even if there were why couldn't he have just heard it from someone who read Mark?
According to Carrier it's all a later addition and does not match Josephus' style at all.
That is Carriers work but he's also sourcing others in the field.

5 the Church fathers? I don’t know some crazy conspiracy

What Church fathers? We know of Bishop Ireaneus who thought the Gnostics were heretics and they thought his group were heretics. The 2nd century had a first official canon and it was the Marcionite canon which we know nothing about. The early Christians were divided into heavily Gnostic type groups with a demiurge and Jesus was only a spirit to more orthadox groups. So there is nothing there to give us accurate information.

This is too much skepticism; using that degree of skepticism you can deny the “brotherness” of any other historical person...................... For example, Historians say that Christopher Columbus had 3 brothers,

Uh, no you do history like your supposed to. Not with a bias opinion up from that some person in stories is definitely real. There are countless sources that prove facts about the life of Columbus and some of the myths made up about him.
There isn't any skepticism at all? Do you care about what's true? As explained Paul already used that word to speak of a brother in the Lord. Paul did have to distinguish between apostolic and non-apostolic members.

What's weirder is that in assessing historicity Carrier counts that reference (even though we cannot tell what he meant) in FAVOR of historicity. But in the end he gives 3 to 1 against.
Historicity just means there was a person teaching reformed Judaism named Jesus and they decided to write a savior God myth about him and make him the predicted messiah they got from the Persians.

but using Carries logic and unrealistic skpetisism…………….”maybe they were not biological brothers, maybe the where just good friends”, early sources used the term “brother” in the sense of being friends and other sources just quoted from what they heard and falsy interpreted a biological brothers.

Could you please actually read some Carrier on a specific topic you want to talk about Carrier's take on? You would find Carrier would not say that because there would need to be precedent that Paul would use the term that way.
Paul never says any of those other things but he does use that word to distinguish between regular Christians and Apostles.
Ehrman and James the Brother of the Lord • Richard Carrier

What you are suggesting in your example above is to just make crap up. That is the opposite of what Carrier is doing?

Of course not, this is ancient history this is not rigorous math, obviously nothing in ancient history is 100% sure, but given the evidence that we have to date, James was likely the brother of Jesus which would imply that Jesus was a real historical person.

We have Josephus which is extremely likely to be an entire addition by later Christians or Ehrman's solution is to find the original words before it was altered by later Christians.
That doesn't mention James.
That leaves Paul and the uses that word other times to distinguish between Christians and Apostles.
So given the evidence we can not conclude James was a biological brother. There is a good chance he was an Apostle.
It's also very strange that Paul knows of no ministry, earthly actions or anything like that related to Jesus. That is evidence in itself.

 

[joelr]

Quoting a few examples of evangelical fiddling to destroy the whole book is clearly
a perfect example of bifurcation fallacy.

There are dozens of examples, 5 peer-reviewed papers, and all types of literary myth devices as well as clear uses of OT narratives, line by line and other fiction.

Stop! I want your ideas as to why they ever went over to the Gadarenes in the first place. And why were so many pigs over that way?
Very poor investigation........

I don't care. Because the author wanted it that way.

Ad Hominem Fallacy.

You should at least learn what these fallacies mean before you use them wrong (too late) and look silly.
Your references to conspiracy theories about Christianity in fact have been vague and unsourced.

So a peer reviewed scholar believes that Jesus was a real man, you quote him.... lean on him and yet you deny what Bart decided, eh?

I believe Bart about the gospels being fiction. Problem about the idea there was a man named Jesus is since then another PhD did a historicity study and wrote a 700 page book on the topic and he favors mythicism 3 to 1. I have followed his debates, all on youtube to see how his side held up. He continues to demonstrate his position is actually better than Bart's.
I already explained that the current debate in teh field is historicity vs mythicism. Just now you are getting this?

Since most 'peer reviewed' scholars like Bart Ehrmann feel sure that Jesus (and the Baptist) were real people, you've dug yourself in to a hole.

And as I just explained, after listening to all lectures, debates and reading his blog, answering many questions and his book along with many articles which attempt to refute it (to which Carrier responds) he seems to have the most logical position. He demonstrates why and answers all scholars who come with questions.
Also, he's been bugging Ehrman to debate him. Guess what. Ehrman refuses because he said Carrier is "too mean". Which is a joke. Ehrman seems to know Carrier has made a strong case.

A self contradicting sentence.

As usual, content without explanation. Nonsense in, nonsense out.

Red Herring! I have repeadetly told you that I dismiss the supernatural aspects of G-Mark.

Again, wrong use of a fallacy term. When did you say you reject the supernatural aspects of Mark?

Jesus picked up the Baptist's mission.
G-Mark tells that story........

Is there a point ever coming?

You destroyed your case with your entire post.

Meaningless, unfounded generalizations now? Scholarship has already made the case. What you do with it I do not care.

 

[lukethethird]

No Luke.
Try as you might, you won't find any writings of mine which reject the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Post #624, wherein you flat out rejected the the sacking of the temple and Jerusalem in 70CE. It's there for all to read.

 

[oldbadger]

(Carrier).....Also, he's been bugging Ehrman to debate him. Guess what. Ehrman refuses because he said Carrier is "too mean". Which is a joke. Ehrman seems to know Carrier has made a strong case.
Scholarship has already made the case..............

............ which you have drunk deep of, rather than just do something for yourself.

Once more, The Baptist working against Priesthood corruption, Jesus picking up the cause and carrying on for another year...... the basic account of what happened............ all true. As easy as that.

It might be better if Bart and Carrier joined RF and spoke for themselves because you've not served either well, imo.

 

[joelr]

Yes....... Jesus was a real man, as was the Baptist, as were all the disciples.
And G-Mark tells their story very well, even after the supernatural is removed.

Nope.

"From a historical-critical perspective, the most important thing to note is that whenever there are elements of myth found in a story, the rest of the story can no longer be used as reliable historical evidence (concerning any of the more plausible events found within the same story), due to the principle of contamination — just as a court of law assumes that a personal testimony that contains claims of magic, miracles, amazing coincidences or other implausibilities occurring is highly suspect, unreliable, and therefore must be dismissed from the pool of evidence under consideration. So in the context of the Gospels, if they are in fact demonstrated to be filled with highly devised literary structures constituting elements of allegory and myth, though that fact isn’t in itself evidence against a historical Jesus, it means that the Gospels can no longer be used as evidence for a historical Jesus."

Those scholars agree with me..... not you.
There is no nativity in G-Mark, many of the miracles were spun out of real situations, there was no water in to wine in G-Mark although a good hypnotist could perform that on stage, feeding the multitude has a basis of fact but spun to miracle, walking on water has interesting possibilities, cures and exorcisms could all be baaed on fact (G-Mark), the resurrection didn't happen, and certain details about the crucifixion I have already mentioned before.

As usual, zero sources. I already told you I don't care about your opinion. Back it up or I'm not looking to hear conspiracy theories.

And Jesus was real.

Doesn't look like it.

I am not interested in what Paul wrote, nor in anything copied from Paul by Mark, and have told you that Paul knew nor wrote nothing about the mission apart from the last two days of the last week.
This is all repitition.

As I have demonstrated (there are many more examples) Mark used much of Paul to create a narrative. You haven't debunked any of that or sourced other ideas.
Your uninterest in it shows you do not care about truth but only confirming beliefs you have at some point emotionalized and can no longer change.

.......... petitio principii fallacy.
I've already told you that I do not accept the trashing of the whole gospel because of a few aditions and manipulations..

Good because the gospels are trashed as history because Mark is a myth and the others copied Mark. The Synoptic problem is not speculation but accepted in Christian academia.
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

So do I.
But Oral Tradition carried extra reports picked up later by other authors.

No evidence of oral tradition and the gospels. Besides the gospels (Mark) is entirely full of older stories and savior demigod myths Bart Ehrman explains in his debate against a Christian scholar that there is no evidence of oral tradition here.

Circular Argument. Round and round.
Much repeated.
Paul didn't write about the mission (save the last two days) so Mark couldn't have copied it all..... and most of the additions were not original.
The first verse was even manipulated! (...son of God)

Mark has many sources.
Several are discussed here:
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark

All tyhe supernatural is mythology.
But built from real happenings.

Yes built from the pen of an author writing fiction.

So now you are coming round at last.
Only the supernatural spin is mythological.
But the basic accounts did happen.
Jesus was real. So was the Baptist. So was the reason for their uprising.

The basic accounts are written in a book of unsourced wild fiction with improbable events and is not real.

First of all, before even identifying or examining these literary constructs, allegories, and prospective elements of myth, we can already see by reading the Gospels that they fail to show any substantive content of being actual researched histories. Nowhere in the Gospels do they ever name their sources of information, nor do they read as eye witness testimonies (nor do they identify themselves as such), nor is it mentioned why any sources used would be accurate to rely upon. The authors never discuss any historical method used, nor do they acknowledge how some contents may be less accurate than others, nor do they mention alternate possibilities of the events given the limited information they had from their sources. They never express amazement or any degree of rational skepticism no matter how implausible an event within the story may be — something we would expect from any rational historian (even one living in antiquity). The authors never explain why they changed what their sources said, nor do they even acknowledge that they did such a thing in the first place — despite the fact that Matthew and Luke clearly relied on Mark as a source (as did John, though less obviously so), for example, and then they all redacted Mark’s version as needed to serve their own literary and theological purposes (which explains some of the contradictions found between one Gospel and another). Instead, the Gospels appear to be fictional historical biographies, likely written by specially interested Christians whose intent was to edify Jesus, just like many other fictional historical biographies that were made for various heroes and sages in antiquity. In fact, all students of literary Greek (the authors of the Gospels wrote their manuscripts in literary Greek), commonly used this fictional biographical technique as a popular rhetorical device — where they were taught to invent narratives about famous and legendary people, as well as to build a symbolic or moral message within it, and where they were taught to make changes to traditional stories in order to make whatever point they desired within their own stories.

 

[oldbadger]

Post #624, you flat out rejected the the sacking of the temple and Jerusalem in 70CE. It's there for all to read.

The above shows how poor your comprehension is. Here is the whole Post ..

↑
Luke:- The temple was ruined when the Roman army sacked Jerusalem in 70CE.
OB: Luke............. give it up.
I sincerely and truly believe that any attempts to debate of discuss HJ with you are pointless....... as pointless as debating with a myther.

Luke: Your fantasy fiction has the temple ruined when Jesus was crucified at the time of Pilote by an earthquake wherein the bodies of saints came out of the opened graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem appearing to many people.
OB: No Luke........ I don't believe in the above, I'm not even totally sure that Jesus was crucified.

Luke: We know of the actual time of the temple destruction and what most probably happened from reading history books, not from your ramblings about the Bible.
OB: No Luke........ knowing about 'most probables' is just not good science. You can only guess about what 'most probably happened'.

It's all pointless trying to discuss or debate with folks who call out 'total myth' and chuck out the whole history.

 

[oldbadger]

I already told you I don't care about your opinion.

Then why on Earth do you write to me?
Be best if you go read your peer-reviewed scholars, Joelr........ don't waste you time on HJ students like me.

 

[joelr]

............ which you have drunk deep of, rather than just do something for yourself.

How dare you. You spout completely unsourced ideas with zero scholarship and I actually take the time to study experts, read their books, listen to their arguments and proof, listen to other scholars bring questions and try to debunk them. While you do nothing except form an opinion using no experts work.
Then you tell ME to be the one to "do something" as if obtaining knowledge from academia is a bad thing. It's actually our best guess at knowing truth.
Even worse you tell me to do something but are you working on getting your PhD in biblical history so you can then do work in the field?

You are consistently just throwing empty words around are clearly a waste of time speaking with.

.Once more, The Baptist working against Priesthood corruption, Jesus picking up the cause and carrying on for another year...... the basic account of what happened............ all true. As easy as that.

Wow, yet another non-sourced opinion, what a surprise!

.It might be better if Bart and Carrier joined RF and spoke for themselves because you've not served either well, imo.

Well I've used them to smash you over and over. I'm sure they could do even better. But they won't because you don't have a side. You have ideas hat you cannot source and your proof is "I said so". They don't speak to crank ideas.

 

[joelr]

Then why on Earth do you write to me?
Be best if you go read your peer-reviewed scholars, Joelr........ don't waste you time on HJ students like me.

Initially I thought at some point you would make an actual proper argument with sources. Clearly that is not happening. Even worse is your trying to somehow diminish education and scholars.

 

[lukethethird]

Initially I thought at some point you would make an actual proper argument with sources. Clearly that is not happening. Even worse is your trying to somehow diminish education and scholars.

That's common on forums. Some people prefer to read The Bible and declare Jesus is real., and take offense at those that question The Bible as a reliable source.

 

[lukethethird]

Then why on Earth do you write to me?
Be best if you go read your peer-reviewed scholars, Joelr........ don't waste you time on HJ students like me.

A waste of time is removing supernatural parts of a story to reveal history, that's what a real waste of time is. It's never done, except of course by some when reading The Bible, that's when the pleading becomes real special.

 

[oldbadger]

Initially I thought at some point you would make an actual proper argument with sources. Clearly that is not happening. Even worse is your trying to somehow diminish education and scholars.

It's no good joelr.
All you do is wave a few scholar flags around, screaming ;'peer-reviewed!' and insisting that your cherry picked names have it right.

And you insist upon dreaming up debating rules whereby you can win your very poor argument that all of the Gospels is myth. That's just an ignorant idea.... really.

Either you or @lukethethird challenhged me to show even one scholar that disagrees with the Myther viewpoint, so here are a few out of so many..... Now they all see Jesus differently, so please listen to me when I tell you that any school child can read the gospels, research what other history or archeology is available and make their decisions.

Your ideas about 'can't have a view if you haven't got a degree' (or whatever is just rubbish.

Here you go........ take your pick....... but you can't destroy them all, so you're both unlucky there. Change your minds about the mythical Jesus, I suggest.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
The historicity of Jesus relates to whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. Virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain

Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew and living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[15][16] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the gospels to him, while others portray his "Kingdom of God" as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[17]
The works of E. P. Sanders and Maurice Casey place Jesus within the context of Jewish eschatological
Dale Allison does not see Jesus as advocating specific timetables for the End Times, but sees him as preaching his own doctrine
Jesus as a pious and holy man in the view of Géza Vermes,
Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer and presents Jesus as a Hasid
Marcus Borg views Jesus as a charismatic "man of the spirit",
Both Sanders and Casey agree that Jesus was also a charismatic healer i
In John Dominic Crossan's view Jesus was crucified
Burton Mack also holds that Jesus was a Cynic
Wright's portrait of Jesus is closer to the traditional Christian views
Markus Bockmuehl and Peter Stuhlmacher support the view that Jesus came to announce
Gerd Theissen sees three main elements to the activities of Jesus as he effected social change,
Richard A. Horsely goes further and presents Jesus as a more radical reformer
Elisabeth Fiorenza has presented a feminist perspective which sees Jesus as a social reformer
Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography, painted Jesus as a devout student of John the Baptist
Professor Andreas J. Köstenberger in Jesus as Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel also reached the conclusion that Jesus was seen
Ben Witherington supports the "Wisdom Sage" view, and states that Jesus is best understood as a teacher of wisdom
John P. Meier's portrait of Jesus as the Marginal Jew
Hyam Maccoby proposed that Jesus was a Pharisee,
Morton Smith views Jesus as a magician,
It has been suggested by psychiatrists Oskar Panizza,[181][182][183] George de Loosten,[184] William Hirsch,[185] William Sargant,[186] Anthony Storr,[187][188][189] Raj Persaud,[190] psychologist Charles Binet-Sanglé[191] and others that Jesus had a mental disorder or psychiatric condition.[192]
Earl Doherty has written that Jesus may have been a real person,

 

[night912]

As usual, zero sources. I already told you I don't care about your opinion. Back it up or I'm not looking to hear conspiracy theories.

Then why on Earth do you write to me?
Be best if you go read your peer-reviewed scholars, Joelr........ don't waste you time on HJ students like me.

Initially I thought at some point you would make an actual proper argument with sources. Clearly that is not happening. Even worse is your trying to somehow diminish education and scholars.

Don't you just love quote mining?

 

[oldbadger]

That's common on forums. Some people prefer to read The Bible and declare Jesus is real., and take offense at those that question The Bible as a reliable source.

Special Pleading..... right there.
Nobody takes offence at parts of the gospels being rejected. We just think it's daft, really daft... to use those cases as reason to dump the lot. It's just poor stuff, I'm afraid.

The Priesthood and Temple was a Corrupt Den of Mammon, greed, hypocrisy and carelessness. The working people were getting ripped off. The Temple currency was an outrage because of the emblems on the coins and the exchange rate deceptions. That could and does happen today in our present World so you can believe that for sure.

And then came the Baptist, cutting off the whole money go round by offering redemoption and cleansing for NOTHING. No wonder Antipas got ordered to go out and bring him in.

Now take it from there. Go study....

 

[oldbadger]

A waste of time is removing supernatural parts of a story to reveal history, that's what a real waste of time is. It's never done, except of course by some when reading The Bible, that's when the pleading becomes real special.

Why Luke........ if you threw away every story because of the odd lie here and there, then you might just as well not buy a NewsPaper!

Look at how America is chock full of QAnon muck and other deceptions, and here in Britain we get our fair share.

Learn to be your own investigator....... you can do better.

 

[oldbadger]

Initially I thought at some point you would make an actual proper argument with sources. Clearly that is not happening. Even worse is your trying to somehow diminish education and scholars.

I don't diminish scholarship...... I just realise that none of the scholars are in total agreement with each other and so walk my own line.

And I don't have much trouble with mythers..... they are easy meat, joelr.

 

[lukethethird]

Why Luke........ if you threw away every story because of the odd lie here and there, then you might just as well not buy a NewsPaper!

Look at how America is chock full of QAnon muck and other deceptions, and here in Britain we get our fair share.

Learn to be your own investigator....... you can do better.

Now your conflating newspaper stories with Bible stories, good on you.

 

[oldbadger]

Now your conflating newspaper stories with Bible stories, good on you.

Give it up.
Your wacky ideas that the whole of the Gospel accounts was myth just doesn't stack up. You're just trying reverse a few crank fringe viewpoints in to your own ideas to bolster up your agenda, and it's failing.