Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[leroy]

Sorry, but the Bible can only be counted as one source. It appears that you are not aware of the way that it was formed. They are far from independent. So 1 fails.

The bible is multiple books, most of them written by different person, in a different date and in a different place, under what basis do you assert that mark jonh and paul are not independent?

The embarrassment claim is pure BS and you should be embarrassed for using it. It is the trait of a good story teller to include "embarrassing facts" as well. So those are even more so evidence that it is just a story.

It would have been unlikely that the Joseph or Arimatea thing is a product of a legend or a lie… any legend or Lie would have the apostoles of his family giving Jesus a proper and honorable burial.

3. No, it really does not. The Romans did not cut people down. The bodies were left to rot. If you mean it was a typical tomb of the time that is not evidence because as hard as it is to believe the writers that lived during the time of Jesus understood what sort of tombs they had. This has to be your weakest claim of all

Are you conceding that the writers of the gospels lived during the same time as Jesus?,

In Roman-style crucifixion, the condemned could take up to a few days to die, but death was sometimes hastened by human action. "The attending Roman guards could leave the site only after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."[56] The Romans sometimes broke the prisoner's legs to hasten death and usually forbade burial.[91] On the other hand, the person was often deliberately kept alive as long as possible to prolong their suffering and humiliation, so as to provide the maximum deterrent effect.[88] Corpses of the crucified were typically left on the crosses to decompose and be eaten by animals.[88][105

Crucifixion - Wikipedia

If you want even more you might read this. Political prisoners especially were not allowed to be buried. Some of the historians of the event would surely have mentioned this rare exception.

Corpses of the crucified were typically left on the crosses to decompose and be eaten by animals

The key word is typically, even your own source implies that there where exceptions. And coincidently these exceptions where more common in Palestine, during periods of peace.

We know that there where exceptions because we have found crucified bodies in tombs, this proves that at least sometimes crucified people where buried.

Plus the fact that we do have an explanation for why the romans made an exception…… Jesus didn’t do anything wrong from the point of view of Pilate and the Romans, and we have the fact that a wealthy and influential man (Joseph of Arimathea) asked Pilate do an exception.

So in summery

1 There were some exceptions, sometimes crucified bodies where buried in tombs

2 Jesus was a likely candidate to be an exception. He was a Jew, he was crucified during a period of piece, he didn’t do anything wrong from the point of view of the roman, he had a wealthy and influential friend) ………….can you think of a better candidate to make an exception ?

Political prisoners especially were not allowed to be buried.

Jesus was not a political prisoner, he was a blasfemist, who preached stuff that the Jewish liders didn’t like……… from the point of view of the romans that was not crime,

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bible is multiple books, most of them written by different person, in a different date and in a different place, under what basis do you assert that mark jonh and paul are not independent?





It would have been unlikely that the Joseph or Arimatea thing is a product of a legend or a lie… any legend or Lie would have the apostoles of his family giving Jesus a proper and honorable burial.





Are you conceding that the writers of the gospels lived during the same time as Jesus?,






The key word is typically, even your own source implies that there where exceptions. And coincidently these exceptions where more common in Palestine, during periods of peace.

We know that there where exceptions because we have found crucified bodies in tombs, this proves that at least sometimes crucified people where buried.

Plus the fact that we do have an explanation for why the romans made an exception…… Jesus didn’t do anything wrong from the point of view of Pilate and the Romans, and we have the fact that a wealthy and influential man (Joseph of Arimathea) asked Pilate do an exception.

So in summery

1 There were some exceptions, sometimes crucified bodies where buried in tombs

2 Jesus was a likely candidate to be an exception. He was a Jew, he was crucified during a period of piece, he didn’t do anything wrong from the point of view of the roman, he had a wealthy and influential friend) ………….can you think of a better candidate to make an exception ?



Jesus was not a political prisoner, he was a blasfemist, who preached stuff that the Jewish liders didn’t like……… from the point of view of the romans that was not crime,

Nope, the Bible is one book. You do not seem to understand the history of the Bible at all.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Sure....
I believe in an historical Jesus only, but when in discussion with Christians if they tell me that they have faith about any part of it then I do acknowledge their faith.
I can't see the point in battering people's faiths.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

under what basis do you assert that mark jonh and paul are not independent?

Because they were religious followers

 

[leroy]

Nope, the Bible is one book. You do not seem to understand the history of the Bible at all.

I what you to support your assertion, under what basis would you say that say Paul and Mark and not independent sources?

 

[leroy]

Because they were religious followers

So what? The fact that they are religious followers doesn’t make the sources “not independent”

 

[leroy]

Nope, only one source. The Bible is not multiple sources. And since specific books were picked for the Bible and others were rejected they are far from independent.

Once again, the Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

And of course number 1 is just an empty claim of yours. The stories of miracles could easily have arisen after his death. That is not uncommon at all.

Ok lets be more specific:

Claim: Peter saw something that he interpreted as the risen Jesus

Evidence: Multiple independent sources corroborate this event (Jonh Paul and Luke) whats wrong with this evidence?

The Bible is not multiple sources.

justify your claim

And since specific books were picked for the Bible and others were rejected they are far from independent.

So what? That doesn’t make the sources “not independent”

 

[Subduction Zone]

I what you to support your assertion, under what basis would you say that say Paul and Mark and not independent sources?

There is no need to do so. You conveniently forget or ignore the evidence that almost always proves you wrong.

Right now all that is really needed to be done is to correct you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok lets be more specific:

Claim: Peter saw something that he interpreted as the risen Jesus

Evidence: Multiple independent sources corroborate this event (Jonh Paul and Luke) whats wrong with this evidence?


justify your claim



So what? That doesn’t make the sources “not independent”

Your sources are not independent.

 

[leroy]

M

Of these accounts, Arrianos and Diodoros’s are generally considered to be the most historically reliable.

]

Arainus was born 400+ after the Alexander the Grate was supposedly born. But obviously Arrianus was making up a story (science fiction type stories) about an awesome man with grate military skills and he just invented his battles and his victories against various other nations.

His book Campaigns of Alexander if fool of “fights because the Gods where angy” “oracles” “references to Homer” “references for other legends” references to Socrates etc. exactly what we would expect from a mythical character.

For example

from Arianus
“In these circumstances they did what most of us do, and, being ignorant of the truth, persuaded themselves into believing what they wished to believe.”

A clear reference to Socrates and his quote know that I know nothing

 

[leroy]

Your sources are not independent.

But you won’t support that affirmation right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you won’t support that affirmation right?

No need. When you start acknowledging errors then you have a legitimate right to make demands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course if other members request evidence I will gladly provide them with support. Those that have continually ignored or rejected evidence without even trying to refute it are the only ones that I have on correct only mode.

 

[halbhh]

Jesus himself has quite a few good teachings in the Bible. But there is also quite a bit of nonsense in the Bible.

I know that's the commonplace viewpoint, which I've heard very many times.

But when I track down the precise verses and passages, getting all the context, those 'bad' or 'wrong' or 'nonsense' things just end up disappearing.

Generally, they are misconceptions about what a verse means, usually from the lack of the context --and often that context is immediately visible in nearby verses, though sometimes requires awareness of more distant verses.

But over and over I simply have pointed out context one would get by reading through fully the book in question, or a related book in the same group (common bible), and the seeming 'nonsense' etc. turns out simply a misperception.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what?

So that makes them biased. As in "not independent".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok lets be more specific:

Claim: Peter saw something that he interpreted as the risen Jesus

Evidence: Multiple independent sources corroborate this event (Jonh Paul and Luke) whats wrong with this evidence?

What you call "corroborating" is no more then "repeating the claim".

When I tell you that I saw a ghost last night and you believe me and subsequently you then repeat to someone else that I saw a ghost last night, then you are not "corroborating that event". Instead, you are just repeating my claim.

Affirming belief in a claim and repeating it is not the same as corroborating / supporting said claim.

So what? That doesn’t make the sources “not independent”

Hi palm, meet face...................

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know that's the commonplace viewpoint, which I've heard very many times.

But when I track down the precise verses and passages, getting all the context, those 'bad' or 'wrong' or 'nonsense' things just end up disappearing.

Generally, they are misconceptions about what a verse means, usually from the lack of the context --and often that context is immediately visible in nearby verses, though sometimes requires awareness of more distant verses.

But over and over I simply have pointed out context one would get by reading through fully the book in question, or a related book in the same group (common bible), and the seeming 'nonsense' etc. turns out simply a misperception.

I would say that it was being overly polite in my response to treat advocating slavery, homophobia, and genocide in the Bible as nonsense.

 

[leroy]

So that makes them biased. As in "not independent".

Biased ........yes

non indedependent ...... NO

 

[halbhh]

I would say that it was being overly polite in my response to treat advocating slavery, homophobia, and genocide in the Bible as nonsense.

The bible doesn't anywhere advocate slavery. (to advocate would be to specifically say it's a good thing or virtue or requirement)

Not even in 1 verse.

But it does regulate slavery, in many verses, increasingly over time, progressing.

Even in the code of law for all the nation. (that is, not only the faithful, but even everyone else also)

For example: one of the incremental increases in regulation:

Deuteronomy 23:15 Do not return a slave to his master if he has taken refuge with you.
Deuteronomy 23:16 Let him live among you wherever he chooses, in the town of his pleasing. Do not oppress him.

This reminds of the U.S. 'Underground Railroad' circa 1850 right?

It's one of the incremental increases in regulation (increasing restriction) of slavery in the old testament.

There are even more dramatic ones:

To the minority of actual believers, those that actually believed in God, the instructions became even more forceful:

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is on Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and freedom to the prisoners,

(i.e. no matter the cause or means of slavery, that all those captive should be freed!...)

Progressing in the NT to the beginning of the end of slavery entirely:

Philemon 1 NIV

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bible doesn't anywhere advocate slavery. (to advocate would be to specifically say it's a good thing or virtue or requirement)

Not even in 1 verse.

But it does regulate slavery, in many verses, increasingly over time, progressing.

Even in the code of law for all the nation. (that is, not only the faithful, but even everyone else also)

For example: one of the incremental increases in regulation:

Deuteronomy 23:15 Do not return a slave to his master if he has taken refuge with you.
Deuteronomy 23:16 Let him live among you wherever he chooses, in the town of his pleasing. Do not oppress him.

One of the incremental increases in regulation of slavery in the old testament.

There are even more dramatic ones:

To the minority of actual believers, those that actually believed in God, the instructions became even more forceful:

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is on Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and freedom to the prisoners,

Progressing to the beginning of the end of slavery entirely:

Philemon 1 NIV

I disagree. Telling people from whom they can buy slaves from. Where to buy them. And how to trick one's fellow Hebrews into lifetime slavery is advocating slavery to me.

EDIT: Your last verse does not support your claim. That was only about freeing one particular slave. Not ending all slavery.