Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[Subduction Zone]

Can you quote a single example where I didn't refute nor accept any evidence that was presented to me? ......no you can't


.....

I could but I really do not care to play that game. We have all seen it time and time again here. If I brought up such a case you would just deny it again. Denial is not a refutation.

By the way, this is the attitude of why you are not able to demand evidence. I may provide some, but you are in no position to demand any. Ask the other debaters if what I claim about you is correct or not. You have been put on ignore by quite a few posters because of this behavior.

 

[leroy]

I could but I really do not care to play that game. We have all seen it time and time again here. If I brought up such a case you would just deny it again. Denial is not a refutation.

By the way, this is the attitude of why you are not able to demand evidence. I may provide some, but you are in no position to demand any. Ask the other debaters if what I claim about you is correct or not. You have been put on ignore by quite a few posters because of this behavior.

I may provide some, but you are in no position to demand any.

My apologies, I didn’t know that asking for evidence / or asking others to support their claims was some sort of privilege that I have to earn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My apologies, I didn’t know that asking for evidence / or asking others to support their claims was some sort of privilege that I have to earn.

It is not a privilege that one has to earn. You should know that I never said or implied that. It is a privilege that one can lose. One always starts with that privilege. You lost it through your own actions.

 

[leroy]

It is not a privilege that one has to earn. You should know that I never said or implied that. It is a privilege that one can lose. One always starts with that privilege. You lost it through your own actions.

Dont you thikn your are reacting like a 7yo?

Our conversations always follow the same pattern.

1 I make an argument

2 you claim that the argument is fallacious / wrong / etc.

3 I ask you to spot specifically which point you think is wrong so that I can address it

4 you refuse to answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dont you thikn your are reacting like a 7yo?

Our conversations always follow the same pattern.

1 I make an argument

2 you claim that the argument is fallacious / wrong / etc.

3 I ask you to spot specifically which point you think is wrong so that I can address it

4 you refuse to answer.

No. I explained to you more than once how you are in control of the sort of answers that you receive. If you will not debate properly there is no point in providing you with the evidence that you demand.

And you need to ease up on your false claims about what others do. That would be a good first step.

 

[leroy]

No. I explained to you more than once how you are in control of the sort of answers that you receive. If you will not debate properly there is no point in providing you with the evidence that you demand.

And you need to ease up on your false claims about what others do. That would be a good first step.

I am not making any false claims about you

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not making any false claims about you

You just did in your previous post. Just lay off any claims for a while.

 

[leroy]

You just did in your previous post. Just lay off any claims for a while.

...
some contextfrom a few days ago...

Can you quote a single example where I didn't refute nor accept any evidence that was presented to me? ......no you can't

my alleged false accusation

leroy said: ↑
No based on my experience you don’t tend to support your claims………… (yes soemtiem you do, but usually you don’t)

This includes your most recent claim

its a fact that you havent provided such a quote..................therefore I am not making any false accusation

 

[Subduction Zone]

...
some contextfrom a few days ago...



my alleged false accusation





its a fact that you havent provided such a quote..................therefore I am not making any false accusation

You forgot that you were banned from making demands a long time ago. And I am not playing the game of going back and finding fairly recent posts that refute your claims since you will just ignore them again. Promise to change and keep that promise and I will provide evidence when needed again. Until then, there simply is no point in providing any.

How many times has this been explained to you? At least ten I would estimate as a bare minimum.

 

[leroy]

You forgot that you were banned from making demands a long time ago.

Ok, but it is still a fact that you didn’t support your claim (even if you had a good reason no to) so my accusation was not false.

And I am not playing the game of going back and finding fairly recent posts that refute your claims since you will just ignore them again. Promise to change and keep that promise

Ok what am I suppose to change?

However I will not change none of these 3 things

1 Every time you claim that an argument or claim is wrong/false/fallacious I will ask you to explain exactly where the “problem” is and to justify why you think the argument is “wrong”

2 If you claim that “#1” has already been done I will ask you to quote the specific text where it was done

3 If you refuse to provide the quotes I will call you “dishonest” (or something else)

--

Until then, there simply is no point in providing any.

How many times has this been explained to you? At least ten I would estimate as a bare minimum.

be clear

Exactly what are you expecting from me? please do not answer “I already told you”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, but it is still a fact that you didn’t support your claim (even if you had a good reason no to) so my accusation was not false.

Your accusation was still false since you used the general instead of specific form. Context mattes.

Ok what am I suppose to change?

However I will not change none of these 3 things

1 Every time you claim that an argument or claim is wrong/false/fallacious I will ask you to explain exactly where the “problem” is and to justify why you think the argument is “wrong”

2 If you claim that “#1” has already been done I will ask you to quote the specific text where it was done

3 If you refuse to provide the quotes I will call you “dishonest” (or something else)

--



be clear

Exactly what are you expecting from me? please do not answer “I already told you”

This has been explained to you several times. When someone provides you with evidence you must first acknowledge it. Then you either need to refute it or to accept it. That is the way that evidence works.

And to your 1,2 and 3 above

1 You can ask, but until you change I may not respond. Again, if you want a guaranteed response you need to change first. Otherwise what is the point?

2. Again, there will be no need if you do not change your ways. If you do that question will not be needed.

3. You could try, but first you must at the very least promise to change your tactics, otherwise me not supporting my claims is a moot point. You cannot make such demands until you change.

Change and I will change. keep posting the same and you will only get corrections and evidence if I feel like it.

 

[leroy]

Your accusation was still false since you used the general instead of specific form. Context mattes.

This has been explained to you several times. When someone provides you with evidence you must first acknowledge it. Then you either need to refute it or to accept it. That is the way that evidence works.

And to your 1,2 and 3 above

1 You can ask, but until you change I may not respond. Again, if you want a guaranteed response you need to change first. Otherwise what is the point?

2. Again, there will be no need if you do not change your ways. If you do that question will not be needed.

3. You could try, but first you must at the very least promise to change your tactics, otherwise me not supporting my claims is a moot point. You cannot make such demands until you change.

Change and I will change. keep posting the same and you will only get corrections and evidence if I feel like it.

Ok so why should I change? What are you expecting from me?


Sure I will aknowlege when someone presents evidence and I will ether accept it refute it or admit that I don't know.


Am I suppose to do something else?


.....


So with that said, can you quote any "evidence" provided in this thread that you think I haven't refute or accept?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so why should I change? What are you expecting from me?


Sure I will aknowlege when someone presents evidence and I will ether accept it refute it or admit that I don't know.


Am I suppose to do something else?


.....


So with that said, can you quote any "evidence" provided in this thread that you think I haven't refute or accept?

You keep demanding answers and support for them. You have to at least deal with the answers and support given for them properly if you want people to treat you seriously. And when you lose a debate, which you so far always have, it is best to accept that loss graciously. Otherwise it merely looks as if you are trolling and people will treat you as a troll.

 

[leroy]

You keep demanding answers and support for them. You have to at least deal with the answers and support given for them properly if you want people to treat you seriously. And when you lose a debate, which you so far always have,

I'll repeat my question........can you quote an answer that I failed to deal with properly?

​

it is best to accept that loss graciously. Otherwise it merely looks as if you are trolling and people will treat you as a troll.

Granted, but how am I suppose to admit that I lost, if I have no idea what you are talking about?

Please provide a specific example (with quotes) of an argument that "I lost"

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll repeat my question........can you quote an answer that I failed to deal with properly?

​

Granted, but how am I suppose to admit that I lost, if I have no idea what you are talking about?

Please provide a specific example (with quotes) of an argument that "I lost"

You have failed to promise to change your ways as of yet. so no. I do not care to play that game. First you need to at least promise to:

1. Acknowledge evidence when it is presented to you.

2. Respond to that evidence by either refuting it or accepting it.

 

[joelr]

There is zero evidence for that


Besides I already provided a reply; namely that the James in Josephus was stoned to death in Jerusalem just like James the brother of Jesus (as has been confirmed by other sources) implying that they were both the same person. ……… it would be quote a coincidence that both have the same name, both have a brother named Jesus, and both were stoned to death within the same time frame in Jerusalem

You say "zero evidence" after I produced several papers by scholars explaining why that passage isn't authentic? You didn't offer an alternate theory, you just buried your head in the sand and said "zero evidence"?
The paper gives several examples that show this was likely a scribal error including a scribe had written
“who was called Christ” (…) scribbled above ‘ben Damneus’ so when it was re-written as they constantly were now we have the Jesus from Christianity added.
There are other problems we will get to as well.

yes there are 2 or 3 historians who disagree but the concensus is that the James in josephus is the brother of Jesus

Everyone agrees that in the myth James is Jesus brother. all scholars are in consensus about the T.F Josephus passage as a late Christian forgery.
Now we are looking at Antiquities and the scholarship is not favoring it being authentc.
It is also agreed that the brother of Jesus (if he did exist) died like this:

Clement of Alexandria relates that "James was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club"
Note, NOT STONED. Providing MORE EVIDENCE that the Josephus passage is an error.

You are changing your original claim; I thought that it was a scribal error , (the word “Christ” was added)

So which one is it?

1 a scribe made an error and labeled Jesus as Christ

2 A scribe added the whole passage

We are going back and forth between the T.F. and Antiquities. In Antiquities the James is not the brother of the Christian Jesus. They mistook "Jewish High Priest" for Jesus because this priest also was named Jesus. He also had a brother named James who died a completely different way than the James in question supposedly died.
There is not only a link to a paper on Antiquities but a Q&A at the end of the article where people write with questions and complaints which Carrier addresses all.
Your claims of "zero" evidence are absurd and clear denial?

Experts say that the quote is authentic,

Speaking of absurd and clear denial.

NT Biblical historian Dr Carrier:
my peer reviewed article on Josephus just came out: “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 
(vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), 
pp. 489-514.
Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.


Mason on Josephus on James • Richard Carrier
There is a table shown here is you scroll down which compares known Christian source writings and known Josephus writings which helps one understand why the passages are not Josephus.


Experts do not say this is authentic. Carrier has a paper explaining it's a forgery. Besides multiple scholars who have papers demonstrating the TF is not Josephus, the James passages are also not Josephian in style.
"That not a single sentence of this paragraph makes any sense coming from Josephus—not one line of it matches his practices anywhere else in his writings, but quite conspicuously contradicts them"


Now to get away from Carrier, another panel of scholars goes over all evidence for Jesus, at 12:40 they go over the Josephus passages. The TF is largely known to be a forgery and the James passage is impressive to none of them as we already know of a different fate for James the Just, the passage isn't Josephian.
There are 5 experts there not saying it's likely to be authentic.

 

[joelr]

The confusion had nothing to do with Josephus.

Supposedly:

1 Paul meant spiritual brother both in Galatians and Corinthians eventhough that is far from clear in the text

2 Then comes Mark and he clearly and unambiguously said that James is the biological brother of Jesus

3 You said that Mark was just inventing random names

So of all the names that Mark could have invented, he invented the exact name (James) that would create the confutions and that would confirm that Paul meant biological brother.

Not at all. I said Mark kept James as a spiritual brother. Because that is likely what Paul was saying.
Then he gave Jesus a family. James is a common name and for a minor character having an apostle James and a brother James is not confusing, not odd and probably served a purpose because everything Mark wrote was part of some parable or some literary device.
There was already a James apostle who believed in Jesus but the brother according to John did not.
Looks like Mark kept the apostle James and added a biological brother of some sort.

'This name (James) would not create confusion at all? Mark kept the apostle James. So this answers the question about who was Paul speaking of. It tells us Paul was speaking of the Apostle James. And MArk imported this Apostle into his story.
This isn't an issue at all?

 

[joelr]

But that didn’t happened in any of the gospels, none of the brothers did anything relevant, and non e of the authors claim that at the end they believed in Jesus … from the point of view of the gospels the fact that Jesus had brothers is just a secondary and irrelevant detail.

John used the brothers denial well to establish conflict for the main character.

And the fact that the brothers where not believers make the virgin birth less likely to be true. That is the point.

I mean if your brother was born from a virgin, wouldn’t you suppose that there is something “divine” about your brother?

I don't understand your point. John is not a synoptic gospel and is written later and contains differences. The author was not aware they were using the virgin birth myth and didn't include it. So?

---
The point is that if you are going to fabricate a story where you want to convince everyone that Jesus is God , it would be unlikely that you would fabricate a story where your God was rejected by his own brothers…………People could say ”if not even your brothers believe you why would I believe you”…………this is why the brothers are unlikely to be fabrications but rather an embarrassing fact.

No like all fiction our hero is turned away, has doubts, people do not believe him. This is the classichero's journey. Jesus is a demigod, not God. God is all-powerful,boring. earthly gods are hero characters who people can relate to. They always go through suffering first.

Any myth /fabrication would ether exclude the brothers story or invent a “happy ending” where the brothers repented and followed Jesus, but we don’t see that in the Gospels.

Jesus resurrecting is the happy ending. There are mentions of the brothers waiting for the holy spirit. Johnn is not the synoptic gospels. John is a story focusing more on who Jesus is as a character.
Much of what you describe about John is probably because it's not likely there is one author as writing styles change. Ehrman on John says:

"
have given evidence so far that the Gospel of John is not a single composition written by a single author sitting down to produce the account at a single time, but is made up of written sources that have all been edited together into the finished product. Here I lay out a bit more information about the sources that appear to lie behind this account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

******************************************************************

Thus the theory of written sources behind the Fourth Gospel can explain many of the literary problems of the narrative. These sources obviously no longer survive. What can we say about them?

Character of the Sources in John

(1) The Signs Source. Some of the seams that we have observed appear to suggest that the author incorporated a source that described the signs of Jesus, written to persuade people that he was the messiah, the Son of God. There are seven “signs” in the Gospel; it is possible that these were all original to the source. You may recall that “seven” is the perfect number, the number of God: is it an accident that there were seven signs?

The source may have simply described the signs that Jesus did, in sequence, enumerating them as it went (“This is the first sign that Jesus did,” “This is the second sign,” etc.). If so, the evangelist kept the first two enumerations (2:11 and 4:54) but for some unknown reason eliminated the others. Keeping the first two, however, left a seam in his narrative, since Jesus does other “signs” between them (2:23)."


The rest is under a paywall.

 

[leroy]

You have failed to promise to change your ways as of yet. so no. I do not care to play that game. First you need to at least promise to:

1. Acknowledge evidence when it is presented to you.

2. Respond to that evidence by either refuting it or accepting it.

Yes I promise to do both 1 and 2

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I promise to do both 1 and 2

Okay, good. The rules do not apply to just me. They apply to others such as @joelr too. In the future, as long as you follow those rules, and I will follow them too, I will support my claims with evidence.

Thank.you.