Not having a history degree means that they do not have the proper credentials.Again can you quote a single scholar in the survey that failed to have the proper credentials?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not having a history degree means that they do not have the proper credentials.Again can you quote a single scholar in the survey that failed to have the proper credentials?
okNot having a history degree means that they do not have the proper credentials.
But that has been shown to be largely false. For example Luke's screw up on the date of the first census of Judea. When it comes to reasonable tests they fail. Also you do not even know who the authors of the Gospels were, how are you going to show that they were well informed?
again, if most of the verifiable data is correct then the author is well informed....... that is my stadard, if you think this standard is not appropriate then please suggest a better standardhow are you going to show that they were well informed
He has already done so several times. Why do you keep ignoring the refutations given to you?ok
again quote a scholar in the survey that doesn't have the proper credentials
No, that is not the standard. If an author makes a huge mistake that pretty much disqualifies him as being "well informed". The author of Luke appeared to be well versed upon geography. Very few historical claims were made that I am aware of and as I pointed out there is a major error in one of those.again, if most of the verifiable data is correct then the author is well informed....... that is my stadard, if you think this standard is not appropriate then please suggest a better standard
having an error in the a date is not a "huge error"No, that is not the standard. If an author makes a huge mistake that pretty much disqualifies him as being "well informed". The author of Luke appeared to be well versed upon geography. Very few historical claims were made that I am aware of and as I pointed out there is a major error in one of those.
It is when a your mythical nativity story is based upon that date. That date refutes Luke's nativity.having an error in the a date is not a "huge error"
so by your standards a "huge mistake" (whatever that means) is enough to reject a source? is that what you are saying?
It is when a your mythical nativity story is based upon that date. That date refutes Luke's nativity.
The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)
1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point)
2 Jesus died on the cross
3 Jesus was buried
4 The tomb was found empty
5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus
As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives
1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong
2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis
3 a combination of 1 and 2
4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.
So which one do you pick?
The question is:
Do you accept my standard? “if most of the verifiable data is correct then the author is well informed”………………if not what other standard do you suggest to test the claim that an author was well informed?
You could say:
1 Yes I accept the standard, but all* the authors of the gospels fail to meet that standard
2 Yes I accept the standard, but some* authors fail to meet that standard
3 I reject the standard (please propose a better one)
4 Yes I accept the standard, and the authors meet the standards….. the authors are well informed, but I reject them as good sources for some other reason (for example an author could be both well informed and a liar)
5 Avoid a direct answer as you typically do
The thing is that the experiences that early Christians had where experiences where they interacted, touched and even ate with Jesus, where in some occasions many people saw the same thing at the same time.5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus
When you are grieving very heavily, the way they would be grieving for Jesus, it is quite common to hallucinate seeing them, it's a common experience When I was grieving for Michael Jackson I swore up and down and still do that I heard him say my name Elizabeth! He called to me! It happens a lot, and with my Mom, it was way worse,I could feel her presence with me.
.
But people concluded that they saw the risen Jesus, (not a ghost) early Christians where proclaiming a bodily resurrection………. People see “gohsts” all the time, and nobody ever concludes that a bodily resurrection occurred. People conclude “ohhhhh a spiritual non physical thing visited me”BTW here's another explanation! It was his ghost!!!! Not him his ghost!!!!!!!!!!!!I believe in GHosts
I answered. You did not understand the answer. If you want an answer then apologize and ask again without a false narrative.
5 Avoid a direct answer as you typically do
When you make clear false accusations you lose the right to demand an answer.[
Maybe, so why didn’t you answer again?.......... honestly all you had to do is type a number, that would have been much more faster and easier than starting another childish game[/QUOTE]You did not understand the answer.
[/QUOTE]ok so you whent for number 5
I am not demanding an answer, if you what to play your silly word games and avoid any sort of civilized conversation you are free to do so.
Maybe, so why didn’t you answer again?.......... honestly all you had to do is type a number, that would have been much more faster and easier than starting another childish game
James D G Dunn. No credential in history. Quoted in the study.ok
again quote a scholar in the survey that doesn't have the proper credentials
The thing is that the experiences that early Christians had where experiences where they interacted, touched and even ate with Jesus, where in some occasions many people saw the same thing at the same time.
This is not analogous to your experience with Michael Jackson.
But people concluded that they saw the risen Jesus, (not a ghost) early Christians where proclaiming a bodily resurrection………. People see “gohsts” all the time, and nobody ever concludes that a bodily resurrection occurred. People conclude “ohhhhh a spiritual non physical thing visited me”
Those kind of “ghost” experiences where ok, and even expected by the Jews, a bodily resurrection was unexpected, ghost experiences would have had the benefit of the doubt, given that they were proclaiming a bodily resurrection, this means that there was no doubt. (people saw something that they interpreted as a bodily resurrection)
+ we have the empty tomb, the Ghost hypothesis doesn’t explain the empty tomb.
Yes *it could have been* hallucinations, just like it could have been anything else ………. The question is : is hallucinations a better explanation than resurrection? Would you affirm that?There were many messiahs back then it could've been another Messiah or still they're imaginations. Your imagination can play big tricks on you.
Ok but the objection “you belive its true just because the bible says so” is not a good objection, unless you show that the bible is a bad source……………..agree?
Well then why doesn’t Carrier publish his case in a Peer review article and see what happens.?
Most scholars agree that Carrier is wrong
why is Q relevant, If I am not usign it as a source?
Of course hallucination is a better explanation. Think about it.Yes *it could have been* hallucinations, just like it could have been anything else ………. The question is : is hallucinations a better explanation than resurrection? Would you affirm that?
The thing is that the experiences that early Christians had where experiences where they interacted, touched and even ate with Jesus, where in some occasions many people saw the same thing at the same time.
This is not analogous to your experience with Michael Jackson.
But people concluded that they saw the risen Jesus, (not a ghost) early Christians where proclaiming a bodily resurrection………. People see “gohsts” all the time, and nobody ever concludes that a bodily resurrection occurred. People conclude “ohhhhh a spiritual non physical thing visited me”
Those kind of “ghost” experiences where ok, and even expected by the Jews, a bodily resurrection was unexpected, ghost experiences would have had the benefit of the doubt, given that they were proclaiming a bodily resurrection, this means that there was no doubt. (people saw something that they interpreted as a bodily resurrection)
+ we have the empty tomb, the Ghost hypothesis doesn’t explain the empty tomb.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]We have shown the Bible is not a good source of history.
The original OT myths and Gods are taken from Mesopotamina myths. Gods from Canaanites who Israel emerged from. 2nd temple Judaism (Persian/Greek invasion) is where all modern concepts of afterlife, heaven, Satan, resurrection and messianism came from, dying/rising savior gods were already popular myths then the NT was all taken from Mark which writes in a mythic style, re-works OT and other stories, line by line, uses incredibly improbably mythic literary devices that never happen in history but always in fiction and feature a character who scores higher than King Arthur on the mythotype scale. Then there are no outside verifications except ones that confirm people followed gospels or called them harmless superstitious people.
Not to mention the link about Ehrman explaining the first gospel was written 40 years later and in a language none of Jesus followers spoke. And that over 50% of the other gospels of the time were Gnostic with bizarre theologies.
Yes scripture has been confirmed as a bad historical source.
I don't understand what you mean? Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus has passed peer-review? Many scholars in his field are moving to his side. There is a video where he lists several who have come over. His debates with other scholars were to put his ideas to being tested. The only person who will not debate him is Bart Ehrman.
Now when scholars say he is "wrong" you need to understand what that means. Most of his lectures like the one entitles Why the Gospels Are Myth, are using long accepted material from other scholars.
J.D. Crossan, Ehrman and others only disagree with Carrier on the mythicist issue. They do not believe the gospel narratives to be any more likely true than Hindu stories about Krishna.
Other historians believe Jesus was a man who was later mythicized into a demigod.
But many of them are going to Carrier's side.
Carrier simply came out and noticed their were assumptions about historicity that noone had bothered to actually check and they do not hold up.
When Thompson came out with his work that demonstrated Moses was a myth he had to move to Canada to work. Now it's a standard belief in the OT historicity field.
His PhD advisor (was a Cardinal) refused to accept his work. Now it's a classic and standard reading for OT studies:
https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-...AC1YQEX9VZV&psc=1&refRID=R1DX58F7XAC1YQEX9VZV
Because for a while it was considered the written common source. The sources you mentioned were hypothetical oral transmissions.
Both have been shown to be unlikely but oral transmission is the least probable. Q was considered a better candidate. The Markan priority has now been proven to be by far the most likely source.
But Mark has been demonstrated in several papers to have taken Pauls authentic letters and crafted Earthly narratives.
That is another line of evidence that the gospels are not good history. Mark was taking phrases Paul said, like when Jesus mentioned a message to future Christians, "tell them, this is my body and blood..." and so on. Mark took that and made it into a story about a supper and a crowd of people being present. The breaking bread metaphor became actually breaking bread. There are dozens of examples of Mark using Paul and creating events.
As well as how he created the empty tomb story and what he likely sourced.