Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[leroy]

lol...no friend, I'm not really grasping at straws at all. I understand some of the consequences of "free will". It's were in a situation of genuine freedom, some people will do evil and then influence others to follow, and soon it gathers momentum, and becomes established. It happens over and over in history.

)

I´ve been looking at the argument from evil and I realized that the argument is much stronger than most people realize. For example it is logically possible to create a world where people have free will and always chose to “be good” (Heaven would be an example of such world) so why didn’t God created such a world.

 

[leroy]

Bias - prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
What is wrong with promoting something you believe to be true? That is not bias Leroy.
Also, if that were the case, that would make you biased, when you made your OP.

Bias, is as defined. If you are choosing to do something, just because you are in disfavor with something else - not because you view it as wrong, but simply because you are prejudiced against it.
Did the writers do that? If you answer in the affirmative that places the burden of proof on you, to demonstrate that they did that.
What's your answer?


Information that is too good to be true? From whose perspective?
If the majority view is that something is too good to be true, as opposed to the minority view, that does not mean the majority view is correct. Are you in disagreement with that?


I don't understand that.
Someone's limited understanding does not make something "too good to be true".
Millions of scientists do not think miracles, or the concept of a creator God, is "too good to be true".
I don't understand that Leroy.
People will disbelieve, no matter how strong the evidence is, for something they don't want.


Okay, so your use of the word bias is different to what I understand, and what the dictionary says.
That definition is not bias. Perhaps you are thinking of skeptical. Or perhaps wary... but not biased.
Also, you are thinking of the perspective of persons considering historical documents. Not the writers themselves.
So you have no evidence of bias on the part of the writers. You are looking at our own biases, which yes, does interfere with our view of evidence from investigation.

I told you what I mean with bias, if you feel that I should have used and other word, feel free to correct me and tell me what word should I use.

If the goal of the gospels is to promote Christianity the authors have a bias, which means that they are more likely to exaggerate or misinform about stuff that would sound convincing in favor of Christianity. For example “maybe*” the donkey was not completely white

This is not a big deal, all you need to do is be a little bit more skeptical with those particular claims…..the amount of bias is just one of many criteria that scholars use to determine the authenticity of a historical document, …..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because you said so… sorry I have bad memory I forgot that we already agreed that I will no longer rely on scholars, next time I will simply ask you

No, once again you get it wrong.

In fact you know you have it wrong every time you say "Just because you say so".

 

[leroy]

Read it.

What, did you think the story of the Quran takes place in middle earth filled with fictional mythical beasts or something?

Just like the bible, it includes mentions of real places and real events involving real people which can be historically verified by independent sources.

Read it.

What, did you think the story of the Quran takes place in middle earth filled with fictional mythical beasts or something?

Just like the bible, it includes mentions of real places and real events involving real people which can be historically verified by independent sources.

The gospels talk about specific villages and towns with accurate details about their locations, and with accurate details about the lakes, seas, mountains, type of trees etc. many of these are small towns that most people were not aware of.

The gospels provide accurate information about historical persons including “local people” that would have been unknown by the majority of foragers

The gospels have all the known and verifiable details about Jesus correct

The ratio of common names vs uncommon names is accurate

The architecture is accurate (for example they type of houses common in Capernaum)

The costumes are accurete including the specific costumes in specific towns .

Do you have anything similar or analogous in the Koran?

 

[leroy]

So............................................................ repeating claims is not the same as corroborating the content of said claims.


What's the problem here?

Well I was responding to a previous objection that someone else made ( @Subduction Zone I think)… my original claim was that Peter saw something that he interpreted as a miracle, …. And the evidence that I presented for that claim was that multiple sources report the fact that Peter had an experience that at least he interpreted as a miracle,

So do you agree or disagree with the claim (in red)?

 

[shunyadragon]

Again you don't need to know who the author is, in order to conclude that a document is reliable.

No, yu do not need the author, but you need provenance of document reliability. Many ancient documents do contain documented historical facts and people, but often suffers form a lack of provenance as to origins

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The gospels talk about specific villages and towns with accurate details about their locations, and with accurate details about the lakes, seas, mountains, type of trees etc. many of these are small towns that most people were not aware of.

The gospels provide accurate information about historical persons including “local people” that would have been unknown by the majority of foragers

The gospels have all the known and verifiable details about Jesus correct

The ratio of common names vs uncommon names is accurate

The architecture is accurate (for example they type of houses common in Capernaum)

The costumes are accurete including the specific costumes in specific towns .

Do you have anything similar or analogous in the Koran?

Yes.

I'm sure people like @firedragon could confirm this.
Although it might be that my tag won't notify him, because I think he has me on ignore. Lol




Just to point out though... the gospels, much like the quran, also get things wrong.

Also this: "The gospels have all the known and verifiable details about Jesus correct" is nonsense.
Because exactly ZERO details about Jesus are verifiable because no extra-biblical sources about the dude exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well I was responding to a previous objection that someone else made ( @Subduction Zone I think)… my original claim was that Peter saw something that he interpreted as a miracle, …. And the evidence that I presented for that claim was that multiple sources report the fact that Peter had an experience that at least he interpreted as a miracle,

So do you agree or disagree with the claim (in red)?

I agree you believe that.

There is no way to verify its accuracy. And the "multiple sources" you talk about are just rehashes of the same claims. And as I said: repeating claims is not the same corroborating them.

You have no independent contemporary sources, remember?
We've been over this.

 

[lukethethird]

You still watch Superman?
Fair enough .......

But to be serious, can I ask.. do you accept that John the Baptist existed.?? Do you accept that, say, the Great Temple did exist?

Yes? No?

Many fictions take place in real settings and many fictions have real people play a role, but I take it you're serious and are using this as an argument for non-fiction. I can't believe that has to be explained to you, but since you are committing the fallacy of special pleading it appears that you are all in. Good luck.

 

[leroy]

Yes.

I'm sure people like @firedragon could confirm this.
Although it might be that my tag won't notify him, because I think he has me on ignore. Lol

Ok so in other words you simply guessed that the Quran, had similar stuff, but you can’t prove it………. Besides so what? If the Quran happens to have an equivalent amount of historical data I would consider it a “good historical documents” that wouldn’t not do anything to refute the OP

Also this: "The gospels have all the known and verifiable details about Jesus correct" is nonsense.
Because exactly ZERO details about Jesus are verifiable because no extra-biblical sources about the dude exist.

That is wrong, we know from extra biblical sources that he was crucified, and that he had a brother named James.

But even more important you seem to have an arbitrary standard for some reason you decided to label “biblical sources” as bad and extra biblical sources as “good” ….. the bible (new testament) by definition is a collection of the best sources related to Jesus, his life and his teachings.

Imagine that you take the best sources for the life of Alexander the Great, and you put them all together in to one book and call the book “Alex” …. Then imagine how ridiculous an skeptic will sound if he says ohhh we can’t know anything about Alexander because we don’t have any good source outside “Alex”

 

[nPeace]

Uhu, uhu....

You make no sense.
It's an illustration of how bias of an author can and will affect his writings concerning a certain subject he is biased about.

This is literally what bias is all about.

The only reason I used the Maradona analogy, is because from experience I know that theists tend to see things clearer when it concerns common subjects instead of their religion.

I also know from a experience that theists will tend to damn the analogy or dodge it if and when they realize that answering the obvious will backfire on their religious argument.
You are a prime example of this.



It does not.
And the very article you link to, actually explains why it does not. See the section concerning the limitations. There's all kinds of motives for including embarrassing details or story lines.

In the case of Maradonna, there's plenty to go on. Like him scoring the winning goal against England using his hands. Or his cocaine abuse. "poor Maradonna, so misunderstood or influenced by bad people".

None of this takes away the bias of all 3 candidate authors. Because yes, even the one who's impartial, has a bias. His bias is towards evidence and accuracy.

As I said, the analogy was an illustration to clarify what bias is all about and how it will affect what is written down and how things are being presented.

All 3 will include cocaine abuse and "the hand of god" goal against england. Yet the reader will walk away with different interpretations / explanations of these events.

As usual, the point is flying over your head.

See what I mean.
That's exactly what I was saying.
Your analogies are always poor, because of two things.
1. They are always designed to fit your view, ane 2. Even when they fail, they always still support your view.
LOL.

 

[nPeace]

I told you what I mean with bias, if you feel that I should have used and other word, feel free to correct me and tell me what word should I use.

If the goal of the gospels is to promote Christianity the authors have a bias, which means that they are more likely to exaggerate or misinform about stuff that would sound convincing in favor of Christianity. For example “maybe*” the donkey was not completely white

This is not a big deal, all you need to do is be a little bit more skeptical with those particular claims…..the amount of bias is just one of many criteria that scholars use to determine the authenticity of a historical document, …..

Was the writer's goal to promote Christianity, or to speak the truth about what they had seen and heard?

 

[nPeace]

Yes.

I'm sure people like @firedragon could confirm this.
Although it might be that my tag won't notify him, because I think he has me on ignore. Lol




Just to point out though... the gospels, much like the quran, also get things wrong.

Also this: "The gospels have all the known and verifiable details about Jesus correct" is nonsense.
Because exactly ZERO details about Jesus are verifiable because no extra-biblical sources about the dude exist.

Is it any surprise you ignored my post here.
You do this all the time. Whenever sources refute your empy claims which you repeat over and over, you simply take the stance...

Or...

Here we go... again.
Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia.
Let's see you execute that trademark again. LOL

 

[oldbadger]

Many fictions take place in real settings and many fictions have real people play a role, but I take it you're serious and are using this as an argument for non-fiction.

Luke, I don't think that you know whether the Baptist was a real person or not.
So let us make it easier for you.
Do you believe that there really was a Great Temple where hundreds of thousands of Jewish folks attended Great Feasts and offered sacrifices?

What do you think?

I can't believe that has to be explained to you, but since you are committing the fallacy of special pleading it appears that you are all in. Good luck.

I don't think that you know what 'special pleading' is, Luke.

So just try and start somewhere. Do you believe that the Great Temple feasts really happened?

 

[oldbadger]

Because exactly ZERO details about Jesus are verifiable because no extra-biblical sources about the dude exist.

........ so an HJ researcher has to delve much more deeply ........ right?
The trouble is that Jesus was only known about in Galilee for a few (11-12) months, and in Jerusalem for about a week. The Baptist was more widely known and for a slightly longer time, imo.

To make things harder still, most Galilean peasants (the majority of the people) were illiterate and they relied upon Oral Tradition to pass their accounts and histories down. And even when, eventually, an account was written down only one of the authors may have been a partial witness.

There are some 2nd century reports by enemies of Christianity about Jesus, and one that we know about from the 1st century in Josephus, although sadly some Christian/s messed about with it.

But even so, the majority of HJ 'peer reviewed' scholars who have researched HJ reckon that Jesus and the Baptist were real people. What do you think about their ideas?

 

[lukethethird]

Luke, I don't think that you know whether the Baptist was a real person or not.
So let us make it easier for you.
Do you believe that there really was a Great Temple where hundreds of thousands of Jewish folks attended Great Feasts and offered sacrifices?

What do you think?


I don't think that you know what 'special pleading' is, Luke.

So just try and start somewhere. Do you believe that the Great Temple feasts really happened?

By your standard London is a real city inhabited by millions of real people therefore all the Sherlock Holmes novels are historical events and The Hunchback of Notre Dame is historical because Notre Dame Cathedral exists. Good luck with that. Your logic is fallacious, which is why it doesn't work.

 

[shunyadragon]

By your standard London is a real city inhabited by millions of real people therefore all the Sherlock Holmes novels are historical events and The Hunchback of Notre Dame is historical because Notre Dame Cathedral exists. Good luck with that. Your logic is fallacious, which is why it doesn't work.

Simply no, Sherlock Holmes, and te Hunchback of Notre Dame are 'known fiction' set in history. Ancient texts like the Bible and the Iliad and the Odyssey cannot be compared. They are set in history and contain historical facts and persons, but are considered neither history nor fiction as such.

Now some call the Bible fiction set in history with some facts and real people, but that cannot be easily determined as it could with Sherlock Holmes and the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

 

[oldbadger]

By your standard London is a real city inhabited by millions of real people therefore all the Sherlock Holmes novels are historical events and The Hunchback of Notre Dame is historical because Notre Dame Cathedral exists. Good luck with that. Your logic is fallacious, which is why it doesn't work.

Redirection
You didn't answer the simple question.
Do you think that there really was a Great Temple?
Yes or No?

 

[lukethethird]

Simply no, Sherlock Holmes, and te Hunchback of Notre Dame are 'known fiction' set in history. Ancient texts like the Bible and the Iliad and the Odyssey cannot be compared. They are set in history and contain historical facts and persons, but are considered neither history nor fiction as such.

Now some call the Bible fiction set in history with some facts and real people, but that cannot be easily determined as it could with Sherlock Holmes and the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

I have read The Bible, it's fiction set in history where facts are scarce and some real people play fictional roles.

 

[lukethethird]

Redirection
You didn't answer the simple question.
Do you think that there really was a Great Temple?
Yes or No?

Not relevant to the discussion.