Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[joelr]

And my reply was:… so what?... even if I grant that Mark copied from Paul , the fact that Mark described James as a biological brother, indicates that Paul was talking about a biological brother


My point i

If Paul Meant “spiritual brother” and Mark knew that, why did he gave James the title of biological brother?

Mark is euhemrerizing Jesus. To euhemrerize a fictional demigod you place him on Earth, give him a family and have him do miracles and interact with people and teach them spiritual laws. This is a common thing in this age.
Mark took Paul's words and used every chance to create events and people. Like the last supper which wasn't a supper in Paul.
Mark gave Jesus parents and the mention of John becomes biological brother rather than spiritual.

Because just like Flat Earthers you have creative and unsupported excuses for everything, it wouldn’t matter if there were other 10 independent sources mentioning James as a biological brother, you can always find an excuse,

You don't get it. That isn't what's happening. Carrier is trying to find out what's most likely true. Mark is fiction so it doesn't count.
But Carrier does count Paul's mention in favor of historicity. Even though we cannot tell which way it's being used. He counts it in favor of historicity. He's doing scholarship. Not personal bias book writing.

What Carrier actually says about that is:

The historical man Jesus from Nazareth had a brother named James. Paul actually knew him. That is pretty darn good evidence that Jesus existed. If he did not exist he would not have had a brother. (Ehrman)

Carrier - I agree. Hence I’ve long noted this is the best evidence there is for historicity. I even count it as 2 to 1 in favor of historicity in OHJ. The problem, however, is not the validity of the argument, but its soundness. A sound argument has to be not only valid, but its premises also have to be well-established as true—and not in doubt. Otherwise any doubt we have in the premises transfers to the conclusion, and we then have to doubt the conclusion as much or even more. And ample doubts exist as to the central premise: that Paul ever says he knew an actual biological brother of Jesus (much less a Jesus “of Nazareth,” since Paul never mentions anything like Nazareth or “Nazarene” being connected to Jesus).

If you actually read any scholar they are very detailed. in the article Carrier uses many prior historians work and gives very detailed reasons for conclusions

"I here cite Trudinger’s peer reviewed article demonstrating that the grammatical construction Paul uses in Gal. 1:19 is comparative. In other words, “Other than the apostles I saw no one, except James the Lord’s brother.” Thus, the construction Paul is using says James is not an Apostle. And both Trudinger and Hans Dieter Betz (who wrote the Fortress Press commentary on Galatians) cite a number of peer reviewed experts who concur (OHJ, p. 590, n. 100). There were of course Jameses who were Apostles. So Paul chose this construction to make clear he didn’t mean one of them (or a biological brother of Cephas, for that matter). He meant a regular “Brother of the Lord,” an ordinary non-apostolic Christian. But a Christian all the same—which was important for Paul to mention, since he had to list every Christian he met on that visit, lest he be accused of concealing his contacts with anyone who knew the gospel at that time."

He also gives a likely explanation of how the story evolved using an earlier and similar story that started as parables but factions ended up insisting it was historical. We know Ignatious was pushing a historical version of Christianity in the 2nd century.

At :19

 

[joelr]

Another possibility is that the author of Mark and Paul did their homework and they both talked to the Eyewitnesses. Which is why we have similarities in their work.

I´ll ask you this:

Exactly what evidence would convince you that James was the biological brother of Jesus?

That doesn't work. If they both talked to eyewitnesses why did Mark change Jesus giving Paul a message to future Christians into an actual event with people and an actual supper. Jesus meant bread metaphorically and Mark made it into eating bread.
Paul also knows nothing of Jesus life, ministry, miracles, teachings, parents, nothing. There are many other examples of Mark taking Pauls words and expanding them into events.

Why not look over some scholarship yourself? There is a chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that is virtually impossible he wasn't using Paul. The events lining up like that are far too improbable.
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier

If Paul straight out said Jesus had a brother it would be better evidence for historicity. But he does say it in the same way he says apostlic brothers in Gal.
So we cannot tell. All that's happening here is scholars are NOT jumping to conclusions and following evidence?

All this would mean is Jesus was teaching around 30AD and he was the model for the demigod myths written 40 years later.
The gospel stories are in no way true any more than Krishna stories.

 

[oldbadger]

Mark also sources OT and other fiction. He also structures the entire gospel in a ring structure and has sevral other triadic cycles.Even the miracles form a crafted sequential structure. Another literary construct that Mark employs involves the way he structured the entire Gospel, basically into four different parts: The Discipling Narrative (Chapters 1-3), The Sea Narrative (as described before, chapters 4.1-8.26), The Road Narrative (Chapters 8.27-10), and The Passover Narrative (Chapters 11-16). While there is already a brilliant internal several-layer triadic ring structure in the Sea Narrative, there is yet another chiastic ring structure surrounding it, where the Discipling Narrative and Road Narrative mirror each other around the central Sea Narrative.
It's clear that this is mythology. Events do not happen in these ways.

Ha ha! ''Events do not..........'' !!! Where do you dig up this stuff, eh?
How do you fit the Baptist in to your proposal?
And if you actually read this gospel you would see that Jesus failed to draw enough support with his lakeside speeches, failed to draw enough support from his wider Galilee campaign, went to Jerusalem in a last bid to win over the crowds..... and failed, all in about 11-12 months? And G-Mark detailed all this exactly. And you call it myth?
You are not investigating for yourself, for sure....... you conjure up strange reasons to convince yourself that all is myth.

It's all myth. Even the crucifixion narrative is taken from the OT:
Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

I only accept a part of the cricufixion account. So don't waste your time with it all on me,

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

I don't accept that account at all. If Jesus was whipped to bloodiness then his clothing was useless. If he was previously stripped of it and then dressed back afterwards it would have been horrid.
Jesus would have worn peasant's clothing.... noting any soldier would have wanted.
You are wasting your breath with me on this stuff.
But it cannot turn the whole account in to myth.

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”
Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Please do get over the crucifixion...... you go back to it, and back.... like a stuck record.

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

I wonder how many soldiers and civilians callred that out in the whole of WW11, eh? Or do you think nobody ever did? And how could those wotrds have helped any part of Christianity? ......... Jesus losing faith in the last minute? Wake up!

Oh my gosh. This has nothing to do with temple coinage? It's excellent evidence Mark was taking stories from Paul and creating a structure?
Go here:
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier
scroll down until you see the graph which illustrates the chiasmus. The events are statistically impossible that they are real events. This is myth writing.

Wrong....... Jesus was enjoying himself ever so..... The people were all outraged by the Temple coinage.

Temple coinage? Is something wrong with you? This isn't at all about that? It's about taking matching narratives and creating a structure and is how fiction is written?
Not accounts about Jesus or his followers actually did. Just religious stuff.
Nothing to do with the point that Mark is sourcing Paul. And he obviously is.

You cannot win with this 'what's wrong with you' insulting muck, joelr. It's no good you chanting 'fiction-myth-fiction' without first looking at the historical evidence for what I'm trying to show you.

Matthew has 97% of the original Greek taken from Mark. Christian scholars acknowledge this and realize Matthew sourced Mark.
I'm going to stop answering these completely off topic answers that meander into you just preaching what you think is real with zero evidence.

Scholars are now discussing whether Matthew could have first been written in Aramaic. So your ideas about 'orioginal Greek' are not yet solid.
We KNOW that Matthew sourced Mark, and Luke....... but both Matthew and Luke had accounts separate to Mark which they included in their gospels.
Many Statements can help to throw light on to a series of incidents. G-John has a whole bundle of interesting info for historians, even though his timeline is all over the place.

You have fixated on to a scholar who read some other folks' works and then spun it all in to a myth, just like that other name took an archelogical report and spun a gospel village in to myth.
Both attempts can be refuted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All scientists are biased and un-independent sources. Because they are scientists.
My.

Nope. Scientists don't do "beliefs". Science is evidence based.
In fact, the entire peer review process exists exactly for that purpose: remove the personal bias.

Also, scientists are not sources. Unlike religious writings, science doesn't work by "testimony". The data, the evidence are the sources. Not the scientist's opinions and personal beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Biased ........yes

non indedependent ...... NO

Can't have one without the other.

An independent source by definition means an "outsider".

For example....
Suppose that a journal of Julius Caesar details an epic battle against gauls where the roman legions are outnumbered 50 to 1. Suppose Julius claims they won the battle and achieved a miraculous victory.

This would be the claim. Now suppose we also find a journal of his second in command who pretty much makes the same claims. This would not be an independent source, even though it is contemporary. They are in the same camp and might have reasons to make this claim for propaganda purposes, to make Rome look vastly superior or alike.

Now, let's say we also find a journal from the leaders of the gauls. This journal recants the same battle and validates the same story... that they vastly outnumbered the romans and got their behinds whooped in a humiliating defeat.

Now that would be an independent source.


The gospels in this analogy = all romans who worship Julius

 

[oldbadger]

My recent study was the debates between Carrier and Mike Licona.

\Licona's apologetics were illogical. "Well I disagree so let;s move on".
Carrier provided evidence Licona offered faith and opinion. HE lost to actual evidence. I am interested in what is true.

I have been providing evidence, you have not. All you have been offering is opinion. You failed to debunk the examples (there are many more) and continue to only offer opinion.

Wrong....... and I have not offered faith, only the fair counters to your theories.
All theories....... mostly refuted by 'peer reviewed' HJ scholars....

Here you go:-
Christ myth theory debunked by the majority of 'peer' reviewed' scholars. So you would need to accept them..... peer-reviewed?
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
The Christ myth theory is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology," possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact."[87] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."[88]

Most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted,[2][19][89] and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.[90][91][92][93][note 2]

Several authors, including Thomas L. Thompson, have taken a more moderate, "agnostic stance," arguing that while there are a number of plausible Jesuses that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the biblical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[100][101]

I support the last para, which proposes that the gospel accounts could in fact be a record of an attempted uprising by Jews against Priesthood and Temple corruption.

I've already shown you an outline of this which clearly you did not dare to question further or could have given you chapter line verse for all.

Nope, I didn't fall flat at all. Actually you have proven my point.
So you do trust the medical field and professionals in each field.
Yes medical issues still happen, vehicles still crash. But does that mean that we should take medicine from amateur unschooled amateurs or fly in planes built by amateurs? No. There would be far more harmful incidents. I'm sure you and yours have also used the medical field and vehicles MANY MANY times and were successful and safe.

Don't pretend that........ you BET ME that I rely upon those particular sciences beyond question. I don't rely upon anything without question, joelr, and I certainly don't rely upon a Fringe Viewpoint by a minority of researchers.

Pointing out accidents does not negate the fact that we still look to scholarship as out best bet for knowledge. In fact I bet you still use modern medicine and still use modern technology created by the best academia in the fields.
I never said it was ceain, you put the words in my mouth. I said it's out best approximation at truth.
Do I have to school you every single time?

So that's what you BET on, is it?

We don't look to Ad Hominem scholarship for truth, joelr, we simply hear what evidence there is and then make up our own minds.

I started with a small amount of evidence. You debunked zero of it.
The papers on Mark using Paul are not fringe scholars. They are however full of endless examples of Mark sourcing and using mythic devices. The few we covered you didn't come close to explaining.
Even the crucifixion narrative using Psalm you didn't even mention.

All in the evangelical areas! Not in the basic storyline!

Now you make another error by saying I said because a few lines in Paul match Mark all Mark is myth. Wrong. There are way more than few, there are dozens. Then dozens of others not yet given. So we can see a large number of literary sources that Mark merely re-wrote for his fiction, a large number of parallels with other sources, many strange coincidences and other implausibilities, and most impressively several intricately crafted literary structures (some interwoven into others and/or several layers in complexity) and other literary devices that obviously served some overall literary purpose that Mark was trying to accomplish.

All your proposed sentences are evangelical stuffing, joelr. They can't destroy Mark's basic story.

Again, you continue to deny with no evidence?

Also it isn't a "small amount of scholars" the entire field believes that the supernatural gospel Jesus is a myth. They are correct.

There you go again! You hide behind the supernatural evangelical parts while trying to trash it all.

You know well that the majority of the field accepts that Jesus was real!
Correct? YES or NO... please?

I can't answer more...... must do my morning chores.

Now please just acknowledge that the scholars who mostly don't believe in a supernatural Jesus DO accept the probability of a real Jesus having existed. That's where I stand with it all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you give an example of any ancient myth that has nearly as many correct historical demographic, historical and political details as the gospels do?

Yes. The quran.

can you show that the author of the Koran was as well informed as the author of any of the Gospels?

The quran gets the exact same kind of things correct. Names, places, events,...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm aware of the various laws and situations since I read through all the books. Therefore, I accurately summarized that over time, captivity of all kinds is increasingly regulated until the actual beginning of the outright end of slavery entirely, as inevitable once Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets. is spoken by Christ.

The beginning of the end of slavery -- Philemon -- is only the inevitable outcome of Matthew 7:12.

Nothing else would fit Matthew 7:12 after one progresses in faith enough to actually realize what it says, and take it in, mentally.

Of course, it's basic that at any given time only some of the religious people actually act righteously. Christ spoke on that many times, to the great ire of the pharisees and other religious authorities.
See: Matthew 23 NIV

1. the golden rule is not even original to christianity and outdates even abrahamic religion

2. nowhere in the bible does it say "do not keep slaves". Take the 10 commandments, remove the first 4 and replace it with "though shallt not treat other humans as personal property" and already you have improved upon it immensly.


The bible allows slavery and NEVER says "don't do it". There's no way around that.
It doesn't even say "it's better not to do it".

 

[joelr]

Ha ha! ''Events do not..........'' !!! Where do you dig up this stuff, eh?
How do you fit the Baptist in to your proposal?
And if you actually read this gospel you would see that Jesus failed to draw enough support with his lakeside speeches, failed to draw enough support from his wider Galilee campaign, went to Jerusalem in a last bid to win over the crowds..... and failed, all in about 11-12 months? And G-Mark detailed all this exactly. And you call it myth?
You are not investigating for yourself, for sure....... you conjure up strange reasons to convince yourself that all is myth.

All markers of a fictional story. Like the dense lackeys archetype found also in Homer. Myth

Another hint that Mark is writing historical fiction in his Gospel is the way he structures his narrative such that he can successfully accomplish certain literary goals rather than historical plausibility. One primary example of this is the ceaseless incomprehension of the disciples to what Jesus is saying and doing, where they are quite honestly dumber than can be reasonably believed. This archetype of the “dense lackeys” appears to be adapted either from Homer’s similarly unrealistic portrayal of Odysseus’ fickle and clueless crew, or the portrayal of the Jews in Exodus. Mark’s use of this type of literary device, requiring the invention of narrative material to make the structure work, thus allows him to accomplish a certain literary theme that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.

I only accept a part of the cricufixion account. So don't waste your time with it all on me,

That has no point?

I don't accept that account at all. If Jesus was whipped to bloodiness then his clothing was useless. If he was previously stripped of it and then dressed back afterwards it would have been horrid.
Jesus would have worn peasant's clothing.... noting any soldier would have wanted.
You are wasting your breath with me on this stuff.
But it cannot turn the whole account in to myth.

So now you admit some of it is made up. This makes the entire story being myth even more likely?

Please do get over the crucifixion...... you go back to it, and back.... like a stuck record.

That was more evidence of myth to which you cannot refute and will only deny without evidence.

I wonder how many soldiers and civilians callred that out in the whole of WW11, eh? Or do you think nobody ever did? And how could those wotrds have helped any part of Christianity? ......... Jesus losing faith in the last minute? Wake up!

again, the point was to show Mark used Psalm. He did. Mark copied other myths. I do not care which myth you think is true and which is not.

Wrong....... Jesus was enjoying himself ever so..... The people were all outraged by the Temple coinage.

You are saying "wrong" to a different argument? Are you ill? The point (again) is demonstrating Mark is sourcing other myths. And that was another demonstration.

You cannot win with this 'what's wrong with you' insulting muck, joelr. It's no good you chanting 'fiction-myth-fiction' without first looking at the historical evidence for what I'm trying to show you.

Your interpretation of the story does not change the fact that Mark used Paul. As I already stated if you think so, you explain your reasoning. All you wrote was Jesus was enjoying himself and people were outraged? Ok? I don't care what the story means? Mark still sources Paul.

Scholars are now discussing whether Matthew could have first been written in Aramaic. So your ideas about 'orioginal Greek' are not yet solid.

No historians are dicussing that. If you want to raise a completely non-historical crank point then provide scholarship. I'm about done with you. I believe you are just trolling because you couldn't debunk anything I've said.
How many times have I said provide evidence? Instead....doubles up on crank.

We KNOW that Matthew sourced Mark, and Luke....... but both Matthew and Luke had accounts separate to Mark which they included in their gospels.
Many Statements can help to throw light on to a series of incidents. G-John has a whole bundle of interesting info for historians, even though his timeline is all over the place.

Each gospel writer wanted to improve on the previous. Each writer also had a different political agenda. This is well known.

You have fixated on to a scholar who read some other folks' works and then spun it all in to a myth, just like that other name took an archelogical report and spun a gospel village in to myth.
Both attempts can be refuted.

I don't know what you are saying. I'm not interested in your opinions and you cannot seem to back anything up or even make a coherent argument?
All biblical historians know the gospels are myth. This is old news. Were it able to be refuted a PhD would have shown how years ago. Instead the evidence says the opposite. The stories are myth. Acts as Historical Fiction by Purvoe has been accepted into the field and shows the sources for Acts.
Several papers on Marks sources have passed peer-review a long time ago and are standard.
Not only can you not refute anything but you cannot even provide scholarship to back your ideas. I'm tired of answering your empty posts. You yourself cannot even put forth explanations of your ideas.
I already started asking you to back up your earlier claims about Jesus being taken out of Mark and similar crank to which you have fallen silent.
So, good luck with playing games and believing unsupported crank. I'm not responding to anything else without a source and argument.

 

[oldbadger]

All markers of a fictional story. Like the dense lackeys archetype found also in Homer. Myth

More redirection....

Another hint that Mark is writing historical fiction in his Gospel is the way he structures his narrative such that he can successfully accomplish certain literary goals rather than historical plausibility. One primary example of this is the ceaseless incomprehension of the disciples to what Jesus is saying and doing, where they are quite honestly dumber than can be reasonably believed. This archetype of the “dense lackeys” appears to be adapted either from Homer’s similarly unrealistic portrayal of Odysseus’ fickle and clueless crew, or the portrayal of the Jews in Exodus. Mark’s use of this type of literary device, requiring the invention of narrative material to make the structure work, thus allows him to accomplish a certain literary theme that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.

Yet more redirection.
Tell how Jesus's night ruin over to the Gadarenes fits in with your theory, please.

So now you admit some of it is made up. This makes the entire story being myth even more likely?

That was more evidence of myth to which you cannot refute and will only deny without evidence.

This shows that you either cannot comprehend wrote I wrote or did not read it.
I have told you all along that I do not pay any attention to evangelical stuff nor attempts to prove prophesies. All along.......

....you rant on.....

Right...... so you have repeatedly told me how much you rely upon 'peer reviewed' scholarship. Now all you have to do is acknowledge all those scholars, the vast majority, that do accept that Jesus was an historical figure.

YES or NO, please.

Here are those clues again:-
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
The Christ myth theory is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology," possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact."[87] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."[88]

Most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted,[2][19][89] and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.[90][91][92][93][note 2]

Several authors, including Thomas L. Thompson, have taken a more moderate, "agnostic stance," arguing that while there are a number of plausible Jesuses that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the biblical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[100][101]

This is the bottom line for you, because you only seem to accept 'peer reviewed' scholarship. So now please acknowledge the above paragraphs.

 

[nPeace]

Nope. Scientists don't do "beliefs".

...and historians do?

Science is evidence based.

...and history isn't?

In fact, the entire peer review process exists exactly for that purpose: remove the personal bias.

... and archaeological research isn't?

Also, scientists are not sources. Unlike religious writings, science doesn't work by "testimony". The data, the evidence are the sources. Not the scientist's opinions and personal beliefs.

Oh my head. How much more bizarre do you want to get?
The accounts written in the Gospels on the life and activities of persons in the first century is religious writings? Oh my head.

What is a source? Oh my head.
I know there are times when people just want to babble.
However, let's not do that in this thread. We can have self-control, can't we?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

...and historians do?


...and history isn't?

It sure is. Based on multiple independent corroborating sources and preferably other types of data.

... and archaeological research isn't?

You think peer review doesn't exist in the historical or archeological sciences?

Oh my head. How much more bizarre do you want to get?

Not sure what you find so bizarre about that. Then again, you've already demonstrated in the past that you have little to no understanding on how science is done.

Aren't you a creationist? That says enough.

The accounts written in the Gospels on the life and activities of persons in the first century is religious writings?

Yes.
You were not aware that the bible is religious scripture?

What is a source? Oh my head.
I know there are times when people just want to babble.
However, let's not do that in this thread. We can have self-control, can't we?

Don't blame me for your shortcomings in understanding the difference between religious scripture and scientific papers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How does that relate to the claim that I made related to peter and the risen Jesus??

Euh.... I just told you.

They are simply repeating a religious claim. They aren't "corroborating" anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I doubt have a problem with the teachings of Jesus. It is what the rest of the Bible, including Paul teach that is so problematic. With all of the silly laws on mixed fabrics, two different crops in the same field and banning cheeseburgers why couldn't God have just said "Slavery is bad . .. mkay? Its bad. Bad."

Exactly.

As Matt Dilahunty once put so well: "HE'S GOD!!! If he can tell you not to eat shrimp he sure as hell can tell you not to treat human beings as your personal property!!!"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have a goal to tell the truth - to give an accurate account of events. Am I biased?

Not enough information to base the answer on.
Everyone is essentially a bit biased - and not all forms of bias are necessarily bad.

Let's have an analogy. Suppose you wish to know about the life of Maradonna. You go to the store and 3 biographies are available.
1 is authored by a guy who worships Maradonna like some kind of god.
2 is authored by a guy who couldn't stand Maradonna and thinks he's overrated.
3. is authored by an impartial biographer who only cares about accuracy.


Which one of these do you think will give you the most accurate story of Maradonna's life?

Are you saying the writers were biased in that sense?

Gospel writers fall in camp 1 of the Maradonna analogy.

That certainly would fit the OP though. In that, if you believe the Gospels are reliable and accurate historical accounts, then the goal of the writers was to state with accuracy, and unbiased leanings, what actually occurred. True?

Yes, true. If you believe/assume X is the case, then you can say that you believe/assume X is the case.

Not really sure how that helps your case though.
Believing it doesn't make it so.

So according to what I understand the term bias to mean, if the writers were biased, the OP can't be correct. Or the OP would be biased.
Do you see what I am saying?

I see what you're saying and I think you are correct.
The writers of the gospels obviously were biased, since they were believers.
They are the equivalent of the guy who worships Maradonna and then writes his biography.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As a fan you must be familiar with Kami (the god)

So just like Just like Jesus Kami:

1 He was born form a virgin Kami is an Alien whose race is asexual, so tecnically he came form a virgen

This makes no sense. The concept of "virginity" is not applicable in species that are asexual and don't even know genders. It's like talking about the taste of purple. Does not compute.

2 had 12 disciples (Goku, Popo, Kriling, Ten Shin han, Chaos, Yajorobe, Yamcha, Gohan, Goten, Trunks, Gotenx, Supergotenx)

Actually Kami, had NO disciples. When Kurririn, Ten Shin Han, Chaozu, Yajorobe and Yamcha finally get to his place and demand the same training Kami had given to Goku, Kami replies that he didn't teach him anything at all and that Goku trained by himself. The few things he did learn there from someone else, he learned from Popo.

Also, by the time Trunks and Goten, let alone their fusions, are around, Dende is the new Kami. Not Piccolo.
Trunks and Goten never trained under Picolo Kami. Or Picollo, for that matter.

3 was 3 in 1 like In the trinity (Kami, Piccolo, Shen long)

Shen Long is not Piccolo. Shen Long's existance depends on Piccolo's existance, but Shen Long is not Piccolo.

4 he died and resurrected

Correction: was resurrected by another agent. More specifically, Porunga: the dragonball dragon from Namek.
Having said that, literally EVERYBODY in dragonball gets resurrected. Many multiple times over. In fact, THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF EARTH gets resurrected. Twice. Including earth itself.

In fact, in Dragonball Super, entire universes get resurrected.

5 he came to earth in the form of a human

No. Disguised as a human. Not "in the form of".

Do not underestimate my Dragonball (Z/GT/Super) knowledge!

Would you say that the cartoon (or the manga) was inspired in the Gospels?

Not even remotely.
However, Dragonball is infamous for its MANY winks at world religions. And christianity is among the few that barely gets any winks at all. The only thing that I have ever interpreted as such, is some aspects of the afterlife world. Specifically, the "waiting line" at the judge to see if your "soul" goes to heaven or hell.

The original idea of dragonball was inspired by the Monkey King, if memory serves me right.

……..obviously no, anyone can take any 2 independent stories and neat pick in the search for parallels. Yes Kami was born from a virgin because he was an Alien whose race is asexual, so everybody is born from a virgin……….but nothing to do with the virgin birth described in the gospels.

When people say that the gospels are just updated stories from other gods or from the Old Testament they use this kind of neat picking.

Disagree. Your nitpicking of dragonball, was exceptionally bad for starters, as it doesn't add up at all.
But if we, for example, look at the Epic of Gilgamesh and compare that with the Noah story, we see very clear parallels and don't have to deliberately ignore all kinds of major story lines to make it "fit".

 

[oldbadger]

............... With all of the silly laws on mixed fabrics, ........................

Just picking that one law out of the 613....
I have often wondered about some of the OT laws.
One day I mentioned this law to an old Rabbi, hunching my shoulders and rolling eyes etc...
He said,'Oh yes, a status thing, you know.'
Me: 'Errr what?'
He.' You still have such laws today, which seem most strange to outsiders but to 'insiders' they make perfect sense.

He then showed my a picture of the assembled dignitaries at the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, and he started to explain the rules which dictated how long or wide an ermine should be etc.

When I pointed out that such events were rare he pointed out that junior barristers wear a flinmsy little wig whereas Queen's Counselors a much finer specimen, and judges.....! It went on...

And then he explained that the five peasant groups had worn wool whereas tghe Levite 'classes' wore linen spun from the flax plant.

He told me to think about modern day business dress if I should ever wonder again about mixing various cloths. Our modern day taboos and fashions beat the hell out of the OT dress laws.

 

[leroy]

Disagree. Your nitpicking of dragonball, was exceptionally bad for starters, as it doesn't add up at all.

that is my point, Jesus mythithists provide the same kind of parallels.

We have ancient God “X” that was born from a rock, God “Y” that was born after her mother eating a berry, God “Z” was born because her mother put a fish inside her vagina…………and then they say “see they were all born form a virgin”

look at the Epic of Gilgamesh and compare that with the Noah story, we see very clear parallels and don't have to deliberately ignore all kinds of major story lines to make it "fit".

Granted, which is why it seems reasonable to conclude that they share a common source. … if Jesus Mythithist show that the parales between Jesus and say Myhtra are as good* as the paralels between Giglamesh and Genesis then they would have a point

 

[nPeace]

It sure is. Based on multiple independent corroborating sources and preferably other types of data.

Good. So what was your point again?

You think peer review doesn't exist in the historical or archeological sciences?

No. That would be you, based on the fact that you made some point about "peer review process exists exactly for that purpose: remove the personal bias."
Or were you just spouting words into the air? If not, what was your point? How did it relate to anything?

Not sure what you find so bizarre about that. Then again, you've already demonstrated in the past that you have little to no understanding on how science is done.

More spouting... ?

Aren't you a creationist? That says enough.

Bias... ?

 

[nPeace]

Yes.
You were not aware that the bible is religious scripture?

Have you read the Bible? Try reading it again... from Genesis.
Let me get you started.
(Genesis 5:1) . . .This is the book of Adam’s history. . . .
(Genesis 6:9) . . .This is the history of Noah.. . .
(Genesis 10:1) . . .This is the history of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.. . .
..............................
(Genesis 25:12) . . .This is the history of Ishmael the son of Abraham whom Hagar the Egyptian, the servant of Sarah, bore to Abraham.
(Genesis 25:19) . . .And this is the history of Isaac the son of Abraham.. . .
..............................
(Genesis 37:2) . . .This is the history of Jacob.. . .
..............................
(1 Kings 11:41) . . .As for the rest of the history of Solomon, all that he did and his wisdom, is it not written in the book of the history of Solomon?
(1 Kings 14:19) . . .And the rest of the history of Jeroboam, how he waged war and how he reigned, is written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel.
(1 Kings 14:29) . . .And the rest of the history of Rehoboam, all that he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah?
(1 Kings 15:23) . . .As for all the rest of the history of Asa, all his mightiness and all that he did and the cities that he built, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah?. . .
..............................
(1 Kings 22:39) . . .As for the rest of the history of Ahab, all that he did and the house of ivory that he built and all the cities that he built, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel?
(1 Kings 22:45) . . .As for the rest of the history of Jehoshaphat, his mighty exploits and how he waged war, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah?
(2 Kings 1:18) . . .As for the rest of the history of Ahaziah, what he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel?
(2 Kings 8:23) . . .And the rest of the history of Jehoram, all that he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah?
(2 Kings 10:34) . . .And the rest of the history of Jehu, all that he did and all his mightiness, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel?
...............................
(2 Kings 13:8) . . .As for the rest of the history of Jehoahaz, all that he did and his mightiness, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel?
(2 Kings 13:12) . . .As for the rest of the history of Jehoash, all that he did and his mightiness and how he fought against King Amaziah of Judah, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel?
(2 Kings 14:28) . . .As for the rest of the history of Jeroboam, all that he did and his mightiness, how he fought and how he restored Damascus and Hamath to Judah in Israel, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel?
(2 Kings 15:5-7)
. . .Jotham was in charge of the house, judging the people of the land. 6 As for the rest of the history of Azariah, all that he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah? 7 Then Azariah was laid to rest with his forefathers, and they buried him with his forefathers in the City of David; and his son Jotham became king in his place.
(2 Kings 15:11) . . .As for the rest of the history of Zechariah, it is written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel.
(2 Kings 15:14-16)
14 Then Menahem the son of Gadi came up from Tirzah to Samaria and struck down Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria. After putting him to death, he became king in his place. 15 As for the rest of the history of Shallum and the conspiracy that he formed, it is written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel. 16 It was then that Menahem came from Tirzah and struck down Tiphsah and all who were in it and its territory, because it did not open its gates to him. He struck it down and ripped open its pregnant women.
...................................
(2 Kings 15:36) . . .As for the rest of the history of Jotham, what he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah?
(2 Kings 16:19) . . .As for the rest of the history of Ahaz, what he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah?
(2 Kings 20:20) . . .As for the rest of the history of Hezekiah, all his mightiness and how he made the pool and the conduit and brought the water into the city, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah?
(2 Kings 23:28) . . .As for the rest of the history of Josiah, all that he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah?
...................................
(1 Chronicles 27:24) . . .the number was not entered into the account of the history of the times of King David.
1 Chronicles 29:29-30
29 As for the history of King David, from beginning to end, it is written among the words of Samuel the seer, Nathan the prophet, and Gad the visionary, 30 together with all his kingship, his mightiness, and the events of the times involving him and Israel and all the surrounding kingdoms.
................................
(2 Chronicles 9:29-31)
29 As for the rest of the history of Solomon, from beginning to end, is it not written among the words of Nathan the prophet, in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the record of visions of Iddo the visionary concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat? 30 Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel for 40 years. 31 Then Solomon was laid to rest with his forefathers. So they buried him in the City of David his father; and his son Rehoboʹam became king in his place.
(2 Chronicles 12:15, 16)
15 As for Rehoboam’s history, from beginning to end, is it not written among the words of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the visionary in the genealogical record? And there were constant wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboʹam. 16 Then Rehoboam was laid to rest with his forefathers and was buried in the City of David; and his son Abijah became king in his place.
.................................
(2 Chronicles 16:11) . . .Now the history of Aʹsa, from beginning to end, is written in the Book of the Kings of Judah and of Israel.
.................................
(2 Chronicles 20:34) As for the rest of the history of Jehoshaphat, from beginning to end, there it is written among the words of Jehu the son of Hanani, which were included in the Book of the Kings of Israel.
................................
(2 Chronicles 26:22) . . .And the rest of the history of Uzziah, from beginning to end, was recorded by the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz.
(2 Chronicles 27:7) . . .As for the rest of the history of Jotham, all his wars and his ways, it is written in the Book of the Kings of Israel and of Judah.
................................
(2 Chronicles 32:32) . . .As for the rest of the history of Hezekiah and his acts of loyal love, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, in the Book of the Kings of Judah and of Israel.
)(2 Chronicles 35:26, 27
26 As for the rest of the history of Jo·siʹah and his deeds of loyal love, in keeping with what is written in the Law of Jehovah, 27 and what he did, from beginning to end, they are written in the Book of the Kings of Israel and of Judah.
.................................
(Esther 10:2, 3)
2 And all his powerful and mighty accomplishments, as well as the detailed account of Mordecai’s greatness to which the king exalted him, are they not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Media and Persia? 3 For Mordecai the Jew was second only to King Ahasuerus. . . .
.................................
(Matthew 1:1) . . .The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham:

Sometimes, offering to help can be a sin. I think I lent too much of a hand there.
Now please go read your secular sources.
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources
These are biblical figures unambiguously identified in contemporary sources according to scholarly consensus.

Ahab
King of Israel c. 874 – c. 853 Identified in the contemporary Kurkh Monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III which describes the Battle of Qarqar and mentions "2,000 chariots, 10,000 soldiers of Ahab the Israelite" defeated by Shalmaneser.

Ahaz
King of Judah c. 732 – c. 716 Mentioned in a contemporary Summary Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III which records that he received tribute from "Jehoahaz of Judah". Also identified in royal bullae belonging to Ahaz himself and his son Hezekiah.

Then there is, of those mentioned above ...
Hezekiah - Records of king Sennacherib of Assyria states that he besieged Hezekiah, the Jew, who did not submit to his yoke,
A bulla was also found in the capital city of Jerusalem. bearing Hezekiah's name and title. It clearly states "Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz king of Judah".
Jehoash - They have identified him from records of Adad-nirari III of Assyria as "Jehoash of Samaria".
Jehoiachin - He is identified on texts from Nebuchadrezzar's Southern Palace.
Jehu - He is mentioned on the Black Obelisk.
Jotham - They have identified him as the father of King Ahaz on a contemporary clay bulla, which contains the words "of Ahaz [son of] Jotham king of Judah".
Sigh.

Menahem... etc. etc. etc. See the names listed.

Yes. Religious people are historians, in the same way they are scientists.
Because one is religious, does not mean that everything they write will be religious.
When a scientist writes a paper, we don't say, "Well because he is religious, what he wrote is religious."
What bizarre and faulty reasoning... putting it mildly.

The Bible is largely historical. That's what the OP is saying in relation to the Gospels.
You are wrong... again. Sigh.

Don't blame me for your shortcomings in understanding the difference between religious scripture and scientific papers.

Please don't try to pin your shortcomings and rambling babble on me. They are yours. You are free to keep them, or change them. I encourage the latter.