Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[joelr]

Thank you for all the trouble that you have taken with this question.
Before I review your verses, can you now see that nowhere did Paul have any clues about Jesus to offer.... can you see that?
I don't think that Paul was that much interested in the real campaign that Jesus continued after the Baptist's arrest, and so I can see that the gospel, probably mostly the account of Cephas... is in no way contaminated with any of Paul's ideas, because he didn't have any to beging with.
Anyway...... onwards:-

That isn't the point at all? scholarship has demonstrated that one of Mark's sources for material was Paul's letters. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

Right..... you can scrub 1:1, and even up to 1:3 incl, because we know already that phrases like 'the son of God' didn'tappear in earliest copies that we have... I think the first 4 verses are additions.

You think? The scholarship I've seen doesn't agree. In 15:39 they all record the centurion as saying, “Certainly this was God’s Son.”
Does Mark 1:1 Call Jesus 'God’s Son’? A Brief Text-Critical Note | Bible.org

You see? If you start at 1:4 the whole tempo of the intro changes. You are looking at Pauline influence in clerical fiddlings, after the fact.

No, it actually continues to look like he sourced Paul?

Yeah....... just remove ' the gospel of the kingdom of God' and carry on from there for a perfect fit and smooth flow...... all tghis kingdom of God stuff is Pauline, but not in sync with anything Cephas spoke of, imo.

It's still evidence that Mark was sourcing Paul. This objection is unintelligable?

What a stretch! Jesus calling Cephas and Andrew from the nets, versus the above? Nah!

Again, unintelligable? Carrier is pointing out that at the same point both Mark and Paul mention manual labor. More evidence Mark is using Paul as a guide? And they do both mention manual labor....so......?

There is nothing wooly about Cephas being married there, nothing at all. His Mum in Law was ill, for goodness sake. And decades later Cephas is still married....... So what?

Really? Is this that hard? Both mention marriage indirectly.
Let me check......yup, they both do.
Wow, it's almost like Mark was using Paul's writings as a guide for what to write next?

That is not correct. The most senior tax official for the lake could well have been Roman, but all the Toll collection and taxation officials were mosdt likely lower order Levites. Herod Antipas wanted his own to handle his province. Where is this stuff being dug up?

Wow, Mark is really using Paul in a serious way. The basic message is the same. Nitpicking about how it's not exactly literal is incredibly apologeticy. Although I see no reference to tax collectors of this time being "most likely Levites"? It's so obvious that Mark was like "hmmm, what's next....ah, a passage about hanging out with someone of lower status". You are really quibbling over nothing and haven't debunked any single example.

Of course Jesus was angry...... you should see what was going on within the Temple, its Priesthood and more. Fury would describe him well...... The term was ;probably a common idion back then..... hardness of heart. Not Paul's alone.

Oh my God? You are actually putting forth an argument that Mark isn't sourcing Paul because "of course Jesus should be angry"???
Do you even understand what you are arguing about? Mark is making up a fictional story. To guide him he is using Paul's letters to create imaginary events. The more I go over these the more it's so obvious. You can't debunk it at all either. Saying "of course he would be angry" isn't even an argument against that. Are you in the wrong debate?

Deeper truths my foot! Jesus's message needed to be clear as day and even then he wasn't gaining enough support. He may well have waxed in to strange stories if known spies rolled up, but all the parable and spin was within the early church....... Again, I reckon that early clerics played with this gospel. If you read through a few versions you can get a feeling for the 'run' of the account and the 'kingdom of God' bits and 'Son of God' even mentions of 'Christ' just begin to look dodgy.
Deep in the heart of the gospel, none of which Paul ever bothered to learn about (it seems) all is sound deposition.
It's just like a Statement that you could write after being tail-ended by a drunk driver has been doctored later on.

You "reckon" clerics changed this gospel? Uh huh. Meanwhile yeah, it looks like Mark used Paul as a source.

Mark doesn't imagine anything! THat is exactly what Jesus did, he sent pairs throughout Galilee in an attempt to build support, but sadly these guys just could attract crowds quite like Jesus could. Soon after this Jesus threw his whole hand in to an attempt to win crowds over at Jerusalem.

Cool, when you have some proof let me know. Until then, Jesus is a fictional character inside Marks story, so yes, Mark imagined. You say it like you were actually there. What you did is read Mark and imagine it was a real story. That doesn't make it real.

No he doesn't! Jesus clearly tells the pairs to travel light, take no money and to survive as best they can, if they get help, great.... of not, stuff 'em and move on. Paul's 'living in the gospels' is hkis own message to missionaries. Who tried to solder all this together? It's a sham.... honestly.
Must I go on? Must I?.

No he doesn't say stuff em and move on?
"And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. "
So you are wrong and Carrier was correct, Jesus does say people will help them.
Yes Paul's "living in the gospels" is his message. Mark's passage is basically the same - go out and preach and the gospel will support you through the help of people.
Mark is clearly using Paul. You are actually making it clearer.

Whoa! Stop you there. And there it is, the gaping hole between the two accounts.
Jesus loved his drink!! There is no reference to drink in Cephas's account. Can you see how Paul has chucked 'drunkeness' in there? Look, Cephas's true original account was his own. We know that Mark's gospel got messed with, but certainly Paul did not influence the true Gospel.

You think it's evidence that because Mark didn't use "drunkenness" it shows he didn't source Paul? As if when one uses a source you cannot create your own version? Which he obviously did by adding all sorts of other myths. Point is they both go into a rant about sins. It's so obviously taken from Paul. It's a common fallacy to think something wasn't copied unless it uses literally every word. Somehow this fallacy only happens with religious apologetics. If I made a movie about a Luke Skyhopper and he had an android 3pco you wouldn't say "oh that isn't like Star Wars because there is no R2D2 character". You have not debunked any of these even a little.

It is a true account, a deposition about what happened, probnably as seen through two witnesses' eyes, I reckon.
I must go to get my Covid Jab now........ must finish here.
So far you've got nothing.......... honestly.

Probably, you reckon? Proof? None. Evidence? Yes, the evidence is Jesus would have taught in Aramaic in an area that had a 3% literacy rate. 40 years later Mark was written in a different language. 38 years is a lifetime then. Mark not only clearly sourced Paul but he sources several OT narratives line by line as well as other fiction. He uses expert level mythic literary devices like ring structure that never happen in real life and give almost 100% probability that he is writing fiction.
So there is no need for "probably". We already have more than enough evidence to conclude Mark is creating myth. You were not able to counter any of these examples nor offer any evidence except for "probably" and "I reckon".

 

[joelr]

Not possibly!
You haven't shown me a single instance where the account of Jesus's (or the Baptist's) movements were shown by Paul. Not one single incident, or account, or anecdote did Paul ever write about!

Paul wasn't giving accounts of Jesus. He only claimed to have a vision and knew about scripture. Do you even know what the topic is? Mark sourced Paul when creating his story. This has been demonstrated.

No..... Firstly Mark refers to it (incorrectly) as a Passover meal..... all his own error; the Passover meal was consumed within the Temple immediately after the sacrificial ceremony when the visitors would take their sacrifice to the Temple refectories for preparation and consumption. Mark's mistake, all his own. It was a Last Meal. And the text below shows how early clerics adjusted it, in exactly the same way that they (for example adjusted Josephus's mention of Jesus.



This is all about Christianity and nothing to do with the real story, that much is true. ut you would need to weed this evangelical stuff out to find the true gospel under all.



All I noticed was Christian manipulation and editing of a deposition about what happened.

It isn't Mark's mistake? He's writing a myth. We see he gets the idea of the last supper from something Jesus said to Paul.
You seem to have some sort of conspiracy theory that goes beyond standard Christianity. Provide some scholarship because I have no idea what you are talking about and if you have no sources I do not care to hear about it.

You have not shown any evidence that Paul ever wrote anything about what Jesus and the disciples actually did.

Cool but that isn't the discussion? Paul was writing fiction same as Mark so there is no evidence that Paul wrote about a demigod named Jesus.

No they are not.....
The first name on that list is a Christian.
What you have shown is your own interpretation of a bunch of articles about whether (or not) Paul's letters influenced the ORIGINAL GOSPEL, which they did not...... although they may well have influenced the Christian clergy's later interference of them.

Oh darn, you have some conspiracy theory? Had I known I could have just skipped this entire response.

Your mention of peer reviewed academic presses means nothing and you surely know that. What do you do with 'peer reviewed' scholars who support the gospels as true, or part true? o you grip 'Peer Reviewed' opinions tightly then?

There are no historians who view the supernatural stories in the gospels as true. There are no peer reviewed papers in the field that demonstrate evidence for any supernatural claims in the Bible.

All you need to do is show me where Paul influenced any of the accounts about what Jesus did...... Oh, and the sending out of disciples in pairs throughout Galilee failed, so how is that helpful in the cause of Christianity? Hardly a big plus, eh?

Sorry the topic is about how Mark used PAul as a source. That remains true. He also used Psalms and other stories.

Did Paul influence Mark to write this?:-
{15:34} And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Nah...... doesn't look much like anything Pauline to me.

It's well known in scholarship that Mark also uses Psalm 22 which is where Mark got that. Wow, you walked right into that one.

 

[joelr]

Richard Carrier is like the" Kent Hovind" of the historical Jesus .few if any scholars agree with with his radical and absurd views.

Most of Carrier's views are standard in the field. Many historians are admitting to coming to his side actually. I can provide a list.
Doesn't matter because all historians are still in favor of either mythicism or historicity meaning Jesus was a man. The rest is myth.

Do not confuse Carrier's mythicism with all the crankish and polemical noon-scholarship mythicism like Caesar’s Messiah by Joseph Atwill. Carrier is the most modern (since 1926) Jesus historicity study which has gone through peer review and is gaining support by many in his field. His views have been debated by dozens of apologists and fellow historians all free to watch on youtube and his 3 to 1 odds favoring mythicism are looking pretty accurate.

Sure if you adopt a position of extreme skepticism no evidence would ever be enough to convince you that Jesus (or anyone else) is a historical person.

How dare you? "Extreme skepticism"????All extra biblical accounts are either forgery or historians saying that there are a group called Christians lead by Jesus.
The OT was calling for a savior after borrowing the myth from their captors and his name actually means "savior"?
The only history featuring an actual Jesus is the wildly fictitious mythology in Mark. Paul knew of no earthly Jesus and resurrecting saviors before Paul were often played out in the celestial realms by fictional demigods.
All you have are numbers of people who believe but there are more people combined who believe in either Krishna, Islam or other Gods.
So that demonstrated a lot of people can be wrong. The Christian group is likely wrong as well.

Can you show that Alexander the Grate was a historical person?

Doesn't matter if he existed or not he's not claiming to be a world savior. But still -

Alexander’s life is described in great detail in numerous surviving accounts written by various ancient Greek and Roman historians. There are five major detailed histories of the campaigns of Alexander the Great written by reputable historians that have survived to the present day:

Of these accounts, Arrianos and Diodoros’s are generally considered to be the most historically reliable. In addition to all these writers who wrote detailed histories of Alexander’s campaigns, Alexander is also mentioned by countless other ancient writers. Indeed, he is at least mentioned by just about every major Greek or Roman historian who lived after him whose writings have survived to the present day.

If, for whatever bizarre reason, you are only willing to believe someone existed if we have direct archaeological evidence of them, then you are also in luck here. You see, we have all kinds of overwhelming archaeological evidence of Alexander the Great’s existence because he was the king of a large swathe of the literate world at the time when he was alive. Perhaps the most impressive evidence of him comes in the form of contemporary Babylonian accounts of him inscribed in clay tablets.
What Evidence Is There for the Existence of Alexander the Great? Quite a Lot. - Tales of Times Forgotten

When it come to James the brother of Jesus

.

Yes, all ancient historians report stories that they heard.by your logic we should reject alllllll history..... Jesephus was an honest and skilled historian he deserves the benefit of the doubt , probably he made sure to verify the stuff that he is reporting.

No, I gave you one of the best NT historians reading on Josephus? At best it says a man existed who was a good teacher.
But I also gave the scholarship that argues against it and it's overwhelming. This is most likely a Christian addition. Ehrman says it DEFINITELY was altered by Christians and the supernatural aspects are what was added. The remaining Greek talks about a man. But there is evidence against that. A lot of evidence that the entire thing is a later addition by Christians.
If you go back and read the link to the arguments against TV you can see it is not reliable history.

Most history is NOTHING as contraversial as this. Why would you say "alll histories" as if there isn't mountains of evidence against this one thing.
Also, he wrote about John the Baptist more. As well as other Jewish prophets.


But let's move forward with more scholarship on Josephus:

"A new article just beats this dead horse deader still. Hat tip to Vridar and Peter Kirby. Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript, which is not going to happen. All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost.

The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63,” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob, eds., Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (2014: de Gruyter), pp. 147-169 (available at researchgate).

So in addition to all the evidence I and other scholars have amassed (summarized, with bibliography, in On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.9), including the fact that what was once thought to be an Arabic testimony to a pre-Eusebian version of the text actually derives from Eusebius (as proved by Alice Whealey), and the peer reviewed article by G.J. Goldberg that proved the TF was, as a whole unit, based on the Gospel of Luke (and thus even if Josephan, not independent of the Gospels) and my own peer reviewed article (now reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, ch. 19) that added even more evidence, including proving the other brief mention of Jesus in Josephus was also fake (an accidental insertion made centuries after Josephus wrote), and the literary evidence produced by Ken Olson that the TF is far closer to Eusebian style than Josephan style, now Paul Hopper shows that grammatical and structural analysis verifies all of this.

For those who want to understand how this new evidence from Hopper works to produce that conclusion, here is a quick summary:

• (1) Hopper shows the author of the TF consistently used finite verbs differently than Josephus does.

• (2) Hopper shows the author of the TF consistently used oblique and passive language to insert Pontius Pilate into its story, contrary to what Josephus had been doing in the whole Pontius Pilate sequence before that.

• (3) “The time organization in the Testimonium is strikingly different from that of the surrounding text.”Yep. In fact, it makes no sense for Josephus to use that kind of temporal narrative style, when he doesn’t anywhere else here, or pretty much anywhere else in the Antiquities at all. This is exactly, however, how Christians would write it.
• 
  (4) Indeed, not just its organization of time, but the absence of plot indicates the same
• (5) The TF makes no sense to Josephus’s intended narrative; it only makes sense to Christians who needed it there.

details of each point are at
The Josephus Testimonium: Let's Just Admit It's Fake Already • Richard Carrier

So Mark wrote science fiction, and he randomly invented a brother whose name happened to be "James" the exact same name that Paul and Josephus invented.

Mark wrote myth. Of that there is no doubt. I have only touched on the mountains of clear evidence.
A recent post or 2 of mine detailed many of the passages that give evidence that Mark was using Paul's letters as a guide to create his version of the myth. For example the "last supper" was a revelation to Paul and Mark changed it into an actual event with other people, an actual historical event but it wasn't that at all in Paul.

Did you not see all that? I also linked to 5 papers on the subject. So yes, Mark got that from Paul.

Richard carrier is simply trying to hard to aviod the obvious "James is a biological brother"

Any reference from any brother in any ancient text could be interpreted in the same way.

From the context we can infer that there was only one James that was a brother of Jesus ......are we to believe that there was only one "Christian brother" named James?[/QUOTE]

Why do you say it is "obvious"? Paul never uses the Greek word for biological brother? And indeed the only two times he uses the full phrase “brother of the Lord”, he needs to draw a distinction between apostolic and non-apostolic Christians.
Like he does in 1 Cor 9:5.

1 Corinthians 9:5
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephasa]">[


So we cannot know for sure and it's far from "obvious"? This is odd wishful thinking. At best, even if we had definitive reasons to believe Jesus had a brother you cannot go from a human person with a brother to myths being true.[/QUOTE]

 

[joelr]

All that is "crazyflat earth methodology" but even if Mark used Paul as a source....the fact that Mark described James as a biological brother shows that Paul was talking about a biological brother in his letters.

You're coming up short here. I gave you 5 papers on the Paul/Mark connection and a list of examples of how Mark used Paul to craft his narrative. You can't debunk or counter these arguments except to suggest it's like flat earth? You might as well just go all in and use this one "I don't trust secular scholarship" or just call them "heathens".

Your point about a biological brother is mind numbingly incorrect. We see Mark took a personal revelation Paul had and changed it to a real historical event. In Paul’s version, no one else is present. It is not a “last” supper (as if Jesus had had any others before), but merely “the bread and cup of the Lord.” And Jesus is not speaking to “disciples” but to the whole Christian Church unto the end of time—including Paul and his congregations.
Paul is describing Jesus miming some actions and explaining their importance. His audience is future Christians. Mark has transformed this into a narrative story by adding people being present and having Jesus interact with them: now “they were eating” (Paul does not mention anyone actually eating) and Jesus gave the bread “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and instructs them to “take” it (no such instruction in Paul); and Jesus gave the cup “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and “they all drink it” (no such event in Paul); and Jesus describes the meaning of the cup “to them” (no such audience in Paul).

And somehow you cannot imagine Mark transforming the use of the word brother into a biological brother? Even though Mark also gave Jesus an entire life on Earth, parents and all sorts of miracle events, actions and narratives?


I don't understand your reference to flat earth? If a historian were studying myths from China and discovered some earlier myths from India that had hundreds of examples that appeared to be matches for source material and several PhDs wrote papers on it, why would that be flat earth level work? Mark is 100% sourcing Paul and the examples are endless?

Michael Turton discovered this cool chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul.
But there is something even more remarkable about this parallel: it comes in the middle of a chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul. This was first discovered by Michael Turton and is used to significant effect under peer review by David Oliver Smith. Mark is fond of chiastic structure and uses it often. And here we have an instance that demonstrates Mark’s knowledge of Paul’s Epistles.-v from Turton’s demonstration:

A

Romans 8:31-38, References Psalm 118, verse 6; then warns of persecution and denounces all religious authorities but Jesus = Mark 12:10-12, Quotes Psalm 118, verses 22-23; then mentions the religious authorities want to kill Jesus.

B
Romans 13:1-7, Paul exhorts to obey your government and pay your taxes = Mark 12:13-17, Jesus declares “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”


C
1 Corinthians 15:12-34, Paul confronts those who deny resurrection = Mark 12:18-23, Jesus confronts the Sadduccees who deny resurrection.


C’
1 Corinthians 15:35-50, Paul answers what the resurrection body is like, after declaring the folly of those who don’t know (15:36) = Mark 12:24-27, Jesus answers what the resurrection body is like, after declaring the folly of those who don’t know (12:24).

B’
Romans 13:8-10, Paul explains how love fulfills the Law = Mark 12:28-34, Jesus explains how love fulfills the Law.
A’
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 references Psalm 110, verse 1 (in 15:25), and declares Jesus will defeat all enemies and authorities = Mark 12:35-40, Quotes the exact same verse in Psalm 110, then preaches to beware of the religious authorities.

These coincidences and parallels are so statistically improbable as to render any other explanation effectively impossible: Mark is adapting and playing off of specific content in Romans and 1 Corinthians.


laid out in grid here:
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier


The principal works to consult on this (all of which from peer reviewed academic presses) are:

• Michael Bird & Joel Willitts, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (T&T Clark 2011)
• David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels (Resource 2011)
• Tom Dykstra, Mark: Canonizer of Paul (OCABS 2012)
• Oda Wischmeyer & David Sim, eds., Paul and Mark: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (de Gruyter 2014)
• Eve-Marie Becker et al., Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (de Gruyter 2014)
• Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians (Pickwick 2015)

Mark is writing fiction. Even if Jesus were a real teacher who had a brother he was later mythicized into a Hellenistic savior which is mythology.

 

[joelr]

No..... Historians are not all saying the same thing.

They all agree the supernatural stories in the bible are myth. If not source one.

So all you can trawl from the above passage is that G-Mark is the source of the Jesus story and that we are not sure if he was crucified.
I am quite happy to propose that Jesus (son of the Father) was either pardoned and released by Pilate, or that he survived the cross....... in either event he was seen again in Galilee not long afterwards. So the above suits me fine.

Evidence?

Very poor analogy that.
You have to prove that Jesus didn't exist, and it is highly probable that he did.

Then I would have to prove that Thor didn't exist, and Santa Clause and every single fictional character.
But you know we don't have to. The actual evidence does not favor a supernatural Jesus existing at all. I'm sensing a pattern which has to do with having zero evidence. If all you can provide are your beliefs then I don't care. When someone says "you have to prove my fictional character didn't exist" then that tells me they do not care about what is true and only care about what their beliefs are. Even if they are completely unsupported.
Which is a waste of time. Would you want to debate with someone who says "Krishna exists, I have no evidence, prove he didn't exist".
Nah.

Sadly not........ What you (and Carrier) need to do is prove that the Baptist did not exist. When you have done that you have to prove that Jesus did not pick up the Baptist's mission and carry on for another year.......

Carrier has no chance, he cannot do it.

Uh huh, Is that what we need to do. Cool, see ya.

 

[joelr]

I am talking about the methodology.

1 Be extremely skeptical and rise the bar as high as possible when it comes to claims that suggest that Jesus existed.

2 lower the bar a low as possible when it comes to the claims that support his view.

This is the same strategy that YEC and flat earthers use.

This is flat out wrong. Carrier was paid to do a historicity study based on all available evidence and to treat it the way historians are taught to when getting a PhD. He spent 7 years on that project and expected to confirm what his peers believed (historicity).
The evidence did not support that and he details it in a 700 age book. He has several free lectures and dozens of debates online and a free blog. All the information is available for inspection.
He had no "view" until assessing evidence. He also has several real debates with other historians where unlike when he debates apologist fundamentalists they just deny and run to "well I believe anyways" and "well I disagree so lets move on" they actually get deep into details and scholarship.
Carriers lectures on gospels as myth and so on are all based on previous scholarship already standard in the field. The only new thing with Carrier is Jesus mythicism. The expert on Mark being the source gospel is Mark Goodacre.
Mark Goodacre's Homepage

Before Mark's work was accepted it was generally thought in academia that there was a Q gospel or "quela" for
source". Mark has pretty much demolished that idea in his work The Case Against Q
The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre
This page has an overview of the book and explains some of his reasoning regarding the synoptic problem.

 

[oldbadger]

That isn't the point at all? scholarship has demonstrated that one of Mark's sources for material was Paul's letters. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

You cling on to your chosen 'scholarship' for dear life.
I'll bet that you disregard that which does not agree.... am I right?

You think? The scholarship I've seen doesn't agree. In 15:39 they all record the centurion as saying, “Certainly this was God’s Son.”
Does Mark 1:1 Call Jesus 'God’s Son’? A Brief Text-Critical Note | Bible.org

Oh please! THat's Christian waffle. I study HJ, not HC!
I do not believe for one second that any soldier said any such thing and since Mark tells us (not Paul) that Magdalene, Salome and other women watched from 'afar', who is supposed to have heard these words?
The mistake that you are making all the way through is selecting out Christian additions and using threse to chuck the who deposition out.

No, it actually continues to look like he sourced Paul?

It's still evidence that Mark was sourcing Paul. This objection is unintelligable?

Again, unintelligable? Carrier is pointing out that at the same point both Mark and Paul mention manual labor. More evidence Mark is using Paul as a guide? And they do both mention manual labor....so......?

I can see that you cannot understand, and so you write.... but Carrier is clutching at straws in attempt to destroy the whole deposition.

If Paul and Mark both referred to a 'nice-day' you would be clutching to it!

Really? Is this that hard? Both mention marriage indirectly.
Let me check......yup, they both do.
Wow, it's almost like Mark was using Paul's writings as a guide for what to write next?

Bingo! So Cephas really really was married!
That's how we know about his mum-in-law being ill.

Wow, Mark is really using Paul in a serious way. The basic message is the same. Nitpicking about how it's not exactly literal is incredibly apologeticy. Although I see no reference to tax collectors of this time being "most likely Levites"? It's so obvious that Mark was like "hmmm, what's next....ah, a passage about hanging out with someone of lower status". You are really quibbling over nothing and haven't debunked any single example.

You would need to study taxation in Galilee and on the Lake to figure out who controlled taxation directorship and who handled it at lower levels.
You don't actually think that local people were hired to tax local people, do you?

Oh my God? You are actually putting forth an argument that Mark isn't sourcing Paul because "of course Jesus should be angry"???
Do you even understand what you are arguing about? Mark is making up a fictional story. To guide him he is using Paul's letters to create imaginary events. The more I go over these the more it's so obvious. You can't debunk it at all either. Saying "of course he would be angry" isn't even an argument against that. Are you in the wrong debate?

No...... I am telling you that Mark did not source any incidents from Paul to include in the main body of his gospel, and that's easy to show because Paul never described any of them. Easy.
You are picking out the parts of the gospel that probably were not there originally.

You must tell me where Paul wrote about incidents such as the Barabbas riot, or the trip through Samaria, or making a night run down to the Gadarenes by boat.... etc. No.... nothing.

You "reckon" clerics changed this gospel? Uh huh. Meanwhile yeah, it looks like Mark used Paul as a source.

Now if you were telling me that Luke used Paul for small phrases etc I would accept that, but Mark's main gospel has no Paul in it.

You mention soldiers commenting on the dead Jesus, I am not sure that Jesus died. That's how far apart you and I are on this ...

Cool, when you have some proof let me know. Until then, Jesus is a fictional character inside Marks story, so yes, Mark imagined. You say it like you were actually there. What you did is read Mark and imagine it was a real story. That doesn't make it real.

All the proof is there for you...... just trawl through G-Mark and find a Pauline reference for every (any) of the real accounts.
It's just homework, is all.

No he doesn't say stuff em and move on?
"And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. "
So you are wrong and Carrier was correct, .....

No....... 'Shake the dust off your sandals' is what I was referring to.



...... this just goes on........

Carrier cannot show that the main body of Mark was influenced by Paul, only thre 'holy' additions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You arbitrarily decided that only sources outside the bible are “good enough”

It's not arbitrary at all, as the claims in the bible are the very claims that require supporting evidence.

The bible isn't evidence of itself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

BUT you won’t quote a specific failure right? As always your accusations are vague and unsupported.

The thread is filled with on point and supported exposing of your failures.
You ignored them all. Why should they be repeated? You'll just ignore them again.

Go back and address the posts properly without ignoring the inconvenient bits with a shred of intellectual honest and you'll see that people will be more inclined to engage you on your replies.

As it stands, all that needed to be said was already said. There's no reason to repeat it as the pattern here clearly is that you'll just ignore it again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

again if the authors of the gospels got most of the verifiable details correct, why not giving them the benefit of the doubt with the rest fo the details?

For the same reason that eventhough the quran gets many details correct, that does not mean that we should it give it "the benefit of the doubt" that mohammed flew to the heavens on a winged horse or split the moon in 2.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what? Should we drop all Josephus work just because he didn’t witness any of the events that he reports in his documents?............it is another case where this rule* only applies with statements that contradict you personally don’t like.,

When a person reports on what a certain sect of people believes, then that person is not confirming that what this sect believes is actually correct.

Instead, he's just repeating the claims that the sect believes.

It doesn't support the claims. It just reports them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you familiar with" Dragon Ball " (the cartoon)?

Being a mighty dragonball fan...

I'm curious why you asked that question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

why? why isent the bible good enough for you?

For the same reason that the Iliad, the Quran, the bagavad ghita, etc is not enough for you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The good news is that historians have a way to deal with this problem* for example if multiple independent witnesses (or sources) report the same event historians would conclude that the event is likely to be true.

Key word: independent.

None of the gospel authors are "independent". In fact, none of them are even witnesses...

 

[oldbadger]

They all agree the supernatural stories in the bible are myth. If not source one.

Ha ha! Of course they agree that the supernatural is supernatural.
You need to separate the history from the supernatural.

Evidence?

A man who they called Jesus Son of the Father led a demonstration in the Temple and city which turned in to a riot. A person died in the chaos. Jesus was convicted and sentenced to death. But the people loved him so much that they clamoured for his release and the Roman Prefect felt obliged to carry out their
All in the Gospel of Mark, although later editions took out his first name.

In the second possibility Pilate agreed to take down Jesus alive and get him away. Pilate hated the Sanhedrin and all about it. I reckon he was not unpleased with the trouble in the Temple caused by Jesus. So the guards broke the other convicts' legs (a quick death) and got Jesus down..... and away.

Both accounts are in G-Mark....... if you need me to teach you about these and show you chapter and verse, then please just ask.

Then I would have to prove that Thor didn't exist, and Santa Clause and every single fictional character.

Redirection....... straying off subject to disprove subject is not academic.

But you know we don't have to. The actual evidence does not favor a supernatural Jesus existing at all. I'm sensing a pattern which has to do with having zero evidence. If all you can provide are your beliefs then I don't care. When someone says "you have to prove my fictional character didn't exist" then that tells me they do not care about what is true and only care about what their beliefs are. Even if they are completely unsupported.
Which is a waste of time. Would you want to debate with someone who says "Krishna exists, I have no evidence, prove he didn't exist".
Nah.

Supernatural Jesus?
I believe in an Historical; Jesus.

You're still mixing up history with holiness and chucking the lot out. That isn't any kind of academic quality at all.

 

[oldbadger]

Paul wasn't giving accounts of Jesus. He only claimed to have a vision and knew about scripture. Do you even know what the topic is? Mark sourced Paul when creating his story. This has been demonstrated.

From material that Paul never wrote about? No.

It isn't Mark's mistake? He's writing a myth. We see he gets the idea of the last supper from something Jesus said to Paul.

Jresus never knew Paul.
Do you want to rethink the above?

You seem to have some sort of conspiracy theory that goes beyond standard Christianity. Provide some scholarship because I have no idea what you are talking about and if you have no sources I do not care to hear about it.

I'm talking about the history behind the gospels.
I know that all you want to do is copy/paste your chosen scholars to the pages, but if you would just study the subject-matter for yourself then you might do better.

Picking scholars that suit your purpose is not academy...... really

Cool but that isn't the discussion? Paul was writing fiction same as Mark so there is no evidence that Paul wrote about a demigod named Jesus.

I'm not interested in Paul...... or his total lack of interest in what happened during Jesus and the Baptist's missions. I am interested in the missions of the Baptist and Jesus both..... real men, who really did exist.

Oh darn, you have some conspiracy theory? Had I known I could have just skipped this entire response.

There are no historians who view the supernatural stories in the gospels as true. There are no peer reviewed papers in the field that demonstrate evidence for any supernatural claims in the Bible.

You're still stuck on this, can see. Of course historians do not view the supernatural as natural. But the vast majority of historians agree that Jesus and the Baptist were real men who both had real missions.

You are out of sync with 'scholarship' there.

Sorry the topic is about how Mark used PAul as a source. That remains true. He also used Psalms and other stories.

I accept you apology, but I also have to tell you that Paul NEVER WROTE ANYTHING about the men, the mission, or the incidents.

I feel very confident in believing that you are what I call a myther..... desperate to trash every part of the gospels. But you cannot..... You cannot trash the Baptist's story, nor that of Jesus who picked up and carried the mission after the Baptist's arrest.

The fact that a few of Paul's sentences (and lots of OT prophecies) somehow got knitted in to the Jesus story does not kill the basic story.

You just need to become your own investigator.

 

[oldbadger]

It's well known in scholarship that Mark also uses Psalm 22 which is where Mark got that. Wow, you walked right into that one.

Not at all...... I simply showed that Paul didn't lead Mark all the way as you pretend.
In fact Paul led Mark hardly at all, only in a few places and I expect that these 'places' were later 'fiddlings' from clerics.....

 

[oldbadger]

Your point about a biological brother is mind numbingly incorrect. We see Mark took a personal revelation Paul had and changed it to a real historical event. In Paul’s version, no one else is present. It is not a “last” supper (as if Jesus had had any others before), but merely “the bread and cup of the Lord.” And Jesus is not speaking to “disciples” but to the whole Christian Church unto the end of time—including Paul and his congregations.

This was all sent to Leroy....

We've already put the last supper to one side. Anything that Paul wrote about you can put to one side.
There is a homework for you, maybe.??
All you have to do is to trawl through G-Mark and remove any sentence that was originally written by Paul. You can also remove all OT prophecy stuff...... and what you will end up with is a real account. Obviously you have to chuck your agenda to one side and be objective.

Paul is describing Jesus miming some actions and explaining their importance. His audience is future Christians.

But Paul never did describe anything that Jesus did before the last supper........ he didn't care about anything before the last supper.

somehow you cannot imagine Mark transforming the use of the word brother into a biological brother? Even though Mark also gave Jesus an entire life on Earth, parents and all sorts of miracle events, actions and narratives?

Pick three incidents (previous to the last supper) that you think are total myth and I'll discuss them with you.

Michael Turton discovered this cool chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul.

Jesus is in the Temple handling the Priests' interrogation of him. The account is brilliant and involves coinage. How much do you (or Michael Turton) know about the Temple coinage?
The earlier story that Jesus uses he could have learned anywhere. I don't worry about that.

But there is something even more remarkable about this parallel: it comes in the middle of a chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul. This was first discovered by Michael Turton and is used to significant effect under peer review by David Oliver Smith. Mark is fond of chiastic structure and uses it often. And here we have an instance that demonstrates Mark’s knowledge of Paul’s Epistles.-v from Turton’s demonstration:
Romans 8:31-38, References Psalm 118, verse 6; then warns of persecution and denounces all religious authorities but Jesus = Mark 12:10-12, Quotes Psalm 118, verses 22-23; then mentions the religious authorities want to kill Jesus.
Romans 13:1-7, Paul exhorts to obey your government and pay your taxes = Mark 12:13-17, Jesus declares “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

Stop you (and Michael) right there! Paul telling Christians to keep within the laws of lands where they live, and Jesus stuffing Priesthood hypocrisy down its own throat are miles apart.
I certainly believe that the real reasons for the account of the coin has been lost. Jesus was really enjoying himself there and at the priesthood's expense. How much do you know about Temple coinage? I don't think that coin was a silver denarius @ 19.5 grams.... I think it was a Tyrian shekel at 20 grams.... hardly any difference to a bystander.
I would debate your Michael Tyrton about this particular incident any time. He clearly is lost on this one.

1 Corinthians 15:12-34, Paul confronts those who deny resurrection = Mark 12:18-23, Jesus confronts the Sadduccees who deny resurrection.C’
1 Corinthians 15:35-50, Paul answers what the resurrection body is like, after declaring the folly of those who don’t know (15:36) = Mark 12:24-27, Jesus answers what the resurrection body is like, after declaring the folly of those who don’t know (12:24).

Not accounts about Jesus or his followers actually did. Just religious stuff.

Romans 13:8-10, Paul explains how love fulfills the Law = Mark 12:28-34, Jesus explains how love fulfills the Law.

Rubbish.... A clear manipulation.
Mark {12:30} And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first
commandment. {12:31} And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Jesus just amplified the most important of 507 laws. (He had redacted the sacrificial laws..... do I need to show you?)

Matthew certainly got the real mission statement exactly right.... here:-
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.

 

[oldbadger]

Again, unintelligable? Carrier is pointing out that at the same point both Mark and Paul mention manual labor. More evidence Mark is using Paul as a guide? And they do both mention manual labor....so......?

Richard Carrier by Wiki:-

He is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works.[2] Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to specialists,[3][4][5] and he and his theories are often identified as "fringe".

Ah....... so that's what a 'peer reviewed' scholar looks like.

 

[shunyadragon]

Richard Carrier by Wiki:-

He is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works.[2] Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to specialists,[3][4][5] and he and his theories are often identified as "fringe".

Ah....... so that's what a 'peer reviewed' scholar looks like.

Yes, Carriers view are controversial and extreme, but not totally without merit, because of the lack of records of Jesus during his life and after.. What needs clarification is whether the Biblical Divine Jesus existed. Most scholars believe that among the rebellious Messianic leaders Jesus was a real person who preached a Messianic message, lived at the time the New Testament describes, and was tried and convicted of treason by the Romans for claiming to be the King of the Jews, and crucified. I believe that Paul's testimony is sufficient that Jesus was a real person, but Paul never met Jesus and relied on second and thirdhand testimony of those that believed in a Divine Jesus.

I believe in God and Jesus Christ was a Messiah, but fully recognize the limits of scholarly documentation based on the evidence to support this. Like all religions the testimony of the scriptures represents to a degree a human view and belief in the early centuries of Christianity.