Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[shunyadragon]

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

OK, if tat is what you believe, but I do not make the judgement concerning te Bible as a whole, though yes it cotains many fictional accounts.

 

[oldbadger]

Not relevant to the discussion.

I could have won a lot of money if I had placed a bet that you could not and would not ever answer that question.

Of course it is relevant because it is mentioned in the gospels and a gigantic ruin of it still stretches across Jerusalem city, one solid fact ...... but that is not the whole point of the question....

The question simply sought to discover how deeply entrenched you are in your prejudice and agenda.

Imo the question simply spotlights mythers, that's all.

I would be pleased to discuss toy trains, UK politics, cycling or whatever with you, but Historical Jesus? ...... nah.....

 

[lukethethird]

I could have won a lot of money if I had placed a bet that you could not and would not ever answer that question.

Of course it is relevant because it is mentioned in the gospels and a gigantic ruin of it still stretches across Jerusalem city, one solid fact ...... but that is not the whole point of the question....

The question simply sought to discover how deeply entrenched you are in your prejudice and agenda.

Imo the question simply spotlights mythers, that's all.

I would be pleased to discuss toy trains, UK politics, cycling or whatever with you, but Historical Jesus? ...... nah.....

The temple was ruined when the Roman army sacked Jerusalem in 70CE.

Your fantasy fiction has the temple ruined when Jesus was crucified at the time of Pilote by an earthquake wherein the bodies of saints came out of the opened graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem appearing to many people.

We know of the actual time of the temple destruction and what most probably happened from reading history books, not from your ramblings about the Bible.

 

[oldbadger]

The temple was ruined when the Roman army sacked Jerusalem in 70CE.

Luke............. give it up.
I sincerely and truly believe that any attempts to debate of discuss HJ with you are pointless....... as pointless as debating with a myther.

Your fantasy fiction has the temple ruined when Jesus was crucified at the time of Pilote by an earthquake wherein the bodies of saints came out of the opened graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem appearing to many people.

No Luke........ I don't believe in the above, I'm not even totally sure that Jesus was crucified.

We know of the actual time of the temple destruction and what most probably happened from reading history books, not from your ramblings about the Bible.

No Luke........ knowing about 'most probables' is just not good science. You can only guess about what 'most probably happened'.

It's all pointless trying to discuss or debate with folks who call out 'total myth' and chuck out the whole history.

 

[joelr]

More redirection....

Uh, no, more demonstrating Mark is myth.

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

Uh, an excorcism where the demons get sent into pigs and run off a cliff because Jesus performs sorcery.
Yeah that isn't fiction or anything? And Bilbo Baggins is also real.

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 have been vague, used zero sources and saying generally strange references to some conspiracy theory and you complain one cannot comprehend bizarre ramblings?

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]

And again, you do not listen. I have quoted Bart Ehrman over and over. Ehrman like a large number of biblical historians believe Jesus was a man who taught Judaism and was later mythicized as a savior demigod.
Ehrman who was a fundamentalist Christian began studying and realized Christainity was a myth. HE believes Jesus was a man.

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]

This is old and refers to Christ myth theories that were popular when this was written like Josepg Atwells Ceasers Messiah, a crank book about Jesus being a creation of Rome.
Since this time many historians are coming to Richard Carriers side with 3 to 1 odds favoring mythicism.
Now we have an actual scholar who has done a proper historicity study.

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.

Since you quote Thomas Thompson you now admit that Moses and the Patriarchs are myth.

"Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed." Wiki
That reference is in part from William Denver, biblical archeologist but Thompson's work is considered standard in the field and solid proof that Moses was myth.:
The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives - Wikipedia

All of Carriers work is based in part from other historians, Thompson, Mark Goodacre, Purvoe, Pagels, J.D. Crossman, Ehrman and many others. Some may believe Jesus was a man some believe he was myth. Either way the supernatural stories are considered myth by all these historians.
Did you actually think this point would impact this discussion? By all scholars Mark is considered myth. No historian thinks that is written to be history.

What they think is there was a man teaching Judaism, or reformed Judaism and a fictionalized myth was written about him which would be Mark.
"Historicity" means a man. It doesn't mean the gospel fiction is real.

From YOUR ARTICLE:

"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[59] the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[8] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted."


FEW EVENTS ARE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED.
You used this source which backs up my argument perfect. I rest my case.

 

[joelr]

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

You were sadly mistaken. "Christ myth theories" mean Jesus was entirely a myth. Like Ceaears Messia which is known crank. It has nothing to do with the gospels being myth. That is widely accepted by all historians.
In this lecture by a PhD historian he mentions several other scholars who have written papers on the subject of the gospels being myth and he assembles the information into a lecture.
None of the information is his, it's all standard in the field.

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]

And again you get it wrong. Ehrman and Doherity believe Jesus was a man. One without super-god-powers, who was mythicized into a savior demigod in the gospels. I know this because I actuall yread their books.
But you mentioned Ehrman so now we will stick to Ehrman's thoughts on the gospels:
at 1:25:54 he will explain the gospels are anonymous and non-historical.

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.

Since that statement was written in 2013 Carrier came out with his peer reviewed work which has been turning many historians to full mythicism. Clearly you seem to think you have stumbled onto some great find.
I know all these authors. It's where I learned no one believes in the gospel Jesus, he is myth.
Your source pretty much says so:
"Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus; the miracles, such as turning water into wine, feeding the multitude, walking on water, and various cures, exorcisms, and resurrections; his own resurrection; and certain details about his crucifixion.[73][74][75][76][77][78]

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.

Cool then here is an article by Carrier using peer-reviewed papers by FIVE leading scholars on Mark.
You can go over this evidence (like you said you do ) and explain where they go wrong if you don;t agree.
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier


We know Mark is myth and sources Paul and I've given many sources of scholarship on that. You will find no historian who believes this is a true and accurate account of what happened. It's impossible because he copies other stories line by line.

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.

Right except the entire field of biblical historians still believe Mark was the first gospel.
First here is a long scholarly article breaking down how scholars now know Mark was written first and all other gospels relied on Mark for a source. It is written by Christian scholarship and widely accepted as fact:
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

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

They didn't destroy it, they demonstrated over and over that he sourced Paul, took stories from Psalms and other sources and also used OT prophecies and competing mysteryreligion savor gods to construct a story.
This is basic scholarship.
It looks like you completely confused the "christ -myth-theory with the fact that the gospels are mythical.
Christ myth just means there never was a man in 30AD teaching judaism. It doesn't mean the wildly fictitious gospels are real stories. "Historicity" just means there was a man named Jesus. Later myths were created about him. You clearly missed that.

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 already said "historicity" and "mythicism" are being debated. Here at 43:20 a scholar in the field (in 2019) is saying many are leaning towards mythicism now. It is becoming clear that the reasons scholars assumed historicity are not really there and some are admitting it's likely but are not in a position to make that known.
Doesn't matter. We have been discussing Mark using Paul and other sources to which you deny and are continuously being shown to be wrong. That most historians WILL back up.
This new line of argument makes no sense.

You should listen to the entire thing but I do not believe you when you say you listen to evidence.

It does not matter if Jesus was a man or the entire thing is myth. What we know is the gospels are myth. All historians back this up. So your tangent on mythicism is completely missing the point.
I do not care if Jesus was a man. The point is the stories are fiction.
Euhemrerization or mythicizing a real person is another widely popular thing in the Bronze Age.
We even see aspects of it in modern history with George Washington and definitely Joseph Smith from Mormonism.
Geez, what a waste of time.

 

[joelr]

Yes according to normal and reasonable standards Alexander was a real historical person, but if you adopt extreme and unreasonable skepticism like Richard Career does, you would have to reject the existence of Alexander as a historical person .[/QUOTE]

Wait what? Alexander has multiple attestations that have NOT been clearly shown to be later forgeries by a church. Archeology directly relates to him as well as many other sources that were given in the article.
The history of Jesus sucks.
Outside attestations are ruled forgeries by scholars or are clearly a historian saying "there are a group of people called Christains led by Jesus/Christis/Christ.
All there is are the gospels which look exactly like fiction.

It is NOT unreasonable skepticism to be skeptical of Jesus. Unfortunately this is a pointless argument because all experts who do believe in historicity are FIRMLY against any of the mythic stories in teh gospels as being real.
The leading expert on Jesus in Bart Ehrman and is is 100% against gospels being history.
The current PhD historicity study is Carrier who puts mythicism at 3 to 1 after a 7 year, 700 page book.
He details his reasons from free on his blog, debates every and all scholars/apologists and has never lost
The current expert on Mark is Mark Goodacre who has done peer-review work that there is no Q gospel but rather Mark was the source gospel.

The mythicism in Mark, copied verbatim narratives and other literary give-aways show us he was writing fiction.
So having a human Jesus does not get you to a demigod.

Now so far your only objection to mythicism was John brother of Jesus. I have demonstrated that we cannot ever tell if Paul was meaning brother of the lord (he uses the same Greek work in Gal and it means "brother of the Lord") or biological brother. Paul never used the Greek work for biological brother. So we still cannot tell.

Josephus has been completely debunked by Carrier and Ehrman believes he recovered the original words used which would only support historicity. It also could mean Josephus was going by stories he heard. And at that he wasn't very impressed because he spent more time on John and other Jewish prophets.

So nothing there of definitive value.
There is literally no evidence?

That is not how history is done.

I don't know why you accuse Carrier of being hyper skeptical regarding Jesus. I am almost certain you have never read Carrier's thought son Jesus historicity?

In this article Carrier goes over how historians in his field view Jesus historicity and why he feels it's not making a good case.
Maybe you should read the article and explain where Carrier is going hyper-skeptical (if at all)? Am I missing something?


Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

So Paul was clearly and unambiguously talking about “a spiritual brother” but mark decided that it would have been cooler to transform him in to a biological brother, for some strange and mysterious reason…… yea sure that seems the most plausible explanation .

You are playing coy when I believe you know full well why Mark would give Jesus a live brother. He gave Jesus a mother, father, 12 apostles, events, a last supper, a crucifixion, all earthly events where Paul just said he dies and rose. At that time many mystery religions had saviors who resurrected in the celestial realm. We domn't know if Paul was referring to a similar myth. At any rate Mark created an earthly narrative. So that is evidence as to why he would also give him a brother. It is not "mysterious".

Now I explained that the Greek word Paul uses, he also uses in Gal to mean spiritual brother. He uses it to distinguish apostolic to non-apostolic brother in the lord. So, again, and again, we cannot know which meaning Paul meant. How hard is this to get? Do we need to start bringing in Greek words? The actual word for biological brother is not used.
When you say "clearly and unambiguously" you are completely ignoring a reasonable debate?


You are making many assumptions

1 that Mark copied from Paul

which I demonstrated and gave 5 peer-reviewed papers? What do you need? More examples? Would you like 1 whole response of examples? We have excellent evidence. Why would we ignore all this evidence?
There are specific examples, thematic examples where Mark changes things that could only have originally come from Paul, and paradagmatic examples like the last supper which was Jesus saying to Paul things to tell future Christians about his body and blood and Mark changed it into an actual supper with people.

Again, you just refuse to look at examples but would rather just pretend like it's all folly and PhD historians are some sort of fools wasting time?

2 That Paul meant spiritual brother

Paul uses the Greek adelphon -A neuter term meaning brother or sister through affection rather than blood
He uses it in other places to mean brothers in the lord. So again, we cant be sure. Why is this so hard for you?

3 That Mark decided to change spiritual brother for biological brother for some unknown purpose

There are hundreds of examples.
Same reason he changes the last supper message into a actual supper with people at a table.
Same reason he took words of Clement about Jesus warning about betrayers into an actual story about Judas the betrayer.
Mark likes Pauls use of stumbling block and kingdom of God and used them often.
Mark got the idea of inventing a whole narrative sequence of Jesus emulating Moses in miraculously feeding the multitudes in the desert and crossing and manipulating the sea? Just read Paul, 1 Corinthians 10:1-4:

Likewise, Mark 4:9-20 describes spreading the Gospel as like “sowing” seeds, exactly as Paul does (1 Corinthians 9:11); equates evangelizing as cultivating a field, exactly as Paul does (1 Corinthians 3:9); uses the “root” as a metaphor for one’s inner depth of commitment, exactly as Paul was believed to have (Colossians 2:7 & Ephesians 3:17); and uses the same words in the same metaphor of increasing one’s agricultural yield by spreading the gospel on good ground (auxanomena, “increasing,” and karpophorousin, “bearing fruit,” in Colossians 1:5-10). Which is another case where “Paul” is speaking his own mind, in his own words and his own metaphor, which Mark has converted into something taught by Jesus. The author of Colossians had no idea Jesus ever could be quoted in that passage, because Jesus never said any of that. Mark invented it—using Colossians.

Anyway I am confused

Did John also copied from Mark? Was James a historical person?

Paul and people he mention are considered historical.
If you bothered to actually look at Christian scholarship they have already accepted Mark was the source:
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

of the synoptic gospels.
Each gospel was written to improve on the last and be the one gospel used. But John is not a synoptic gospel, written too far after and too separate from the synoptics.
Scholarship considers it unreliable to an even greater degree:

"The teachings of Jesus found in the synoptic gospels are very different from those recorded in John, and since the 19th century scholars have almost unanimously accepted that these Johannine discourses are less likely than the synoptic parables to be historical, and were likely written for theological purposes."

Just because they teach a revisionist history in church doesn't make it true. If you want to honestly debate gospel historicity you should actually study gospel historicity. If you just want to deny and think scholarship that contradicts the church doctrine are "heretics" then go ahead. You will not discover truth however.

 

[leroy]

Y
Now so far your only objection to mythicism was John brother of Jesus. I have demonstrated that we cannot ever tell if Paul was meaning brother of the lord (he uses the same Greek work in Gal and it means "brother of the Lord") or biological brother. Paul never used the Greek work for biological brother. So we still cannot tell.

The reason why I am only mentioning James the brother of Jesus is because I want to focus on a specific argument.

Carriers skepticism is just too crazy.

1 Paul Meant “spiritual brother”

2 Mark copied from Paul, but he changed to biological brother for some mysterious reason (why woudl he copy form paul, if he was going to change stuff anyway? if he is writtign science Fiction, why not inventign all? what is the point of copying from Paul)?)

3 the other authors copied from Mark and didn’t what to correct marks mistake

4 Josephus was just repeating what he heard somewhere (which implies that other sources also identified James as the brother of jesus)

5 the Church fathers? I don’t know some crazy conspiracy

This is too much skepticism; using that degree of skepticism you can deny the “brotherness” of any other historical person...................... For example, Historians say that Christopher Columbus had 3 brothers,

He (Cristopher Columbus) had three brothers—Bartolomeo, Giovanni Pellegrino, and Giacomo
Christopher Columbus - Wikipedia

but using Carries logic and unrealistic skpetisism…………….”maybe they were not biological brothers, maybe the where just good friends”, early sources used the term “brother” in the sense of being friends and other sources just quoted from what they heard and falsy interpreted a biological brothers.

So nothing there of definitive value.

Of course not, this is ancient history this is not rigorous math, obviously nothing in ancient history is 100% sure, but given the evidence that we have to date, James was likely the brother of Jesus which would imply that Jesus was a real historical person.

 

[oldbadger]

Uh, no, more demonstrating Mark is myth.

Quoting a few examples of evangelical fiddling to destroy the whole book is clearly
a perfect example of bifurcation fallacy.

Uh, an excorcism where the demons get sent into pigs and run off a cliff because Jesus performs sorcery.

Stop! I want your ideas as to why they ever went over to the Gadarenes in the first place. And why were so many pigs over that way?
Very poor investigation........

Yeah that isn't fiction or anything? And Bilbo Baggins is also real.

A Straw man plus a red herring, right there!

You have been vague, used zero sources and saying generally strange references to some conspiracy theory and you complain one cannot comprehend bizarre ramblings?

Ad Hominem Fallacy.

And again, you do not listen. I have quoted Bart Ehrman over and over. Ehrman like a large number of biblical historians believe Jesus was a man who taught Judaism and was later mythicized as a savior demigod.
Ehrman who was a fundamentalist Christian began studying and realized Christainity was a myth. HE believes Jesus was a man.

So a peer reviewed scholar believes that Jesus was a real man, you quote him.... lean on him and yet you deny what Bart decided, eh?

This is old and refers to Christ myth theories that were popular when this was written like Josepg Atwells Ceasers Messiah, a crank book about Jesus being a creation of Rome.
Since this time many historians are coming to Richard Carriers side with 3 to 1 odds favoring mythicism.
Now we have an actual scholar who has done a proper historicity study.

Since most 'peer reviewed' scholars like Bart Ehrmann feel sure that Jesus (and the Baptist) were real people, you've dug yourself in to a hole.

Since you quote Thomas Thompson you now admit that Moses and the Patriarchs are myth.

"Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed." Wiki

A self contradicting sentence.

All of Carriers work is based in part from other historians, Thompson, Mark Goodacre, Purvoe, Pagels, J.D. Crossman, Ehrman and many others. Some may believe Jesus was a man some believe he was myth. Either way the supernatural stories are considered myth by all these historians.
Did you actually think this point would impact this discussion? By all scholars Mark is considered myth. No historian thinks that is written to be history.

Red Herring! I have repeadetly told you that I dismiss the supernatural aspects of G-Mark.

What they think is there was a man teaching Judaism, or reformed Judaism and a fictionalized myth was written about him which would be Mark.
"Historicity" means a man. It doesn't mean the gospel fiction is real.

Jesus picked up the Baptist's mission.
G-Mark tells that story........

From YOUR ARTICLE:

"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[59] the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[8] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted."

FEW EVENTS ARE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED.
You used this source which backs up my argument perfect. I rest my case.

You destroyed your case with your entire post.

 

[oldbadger]

And again you get it wrong. Ehrman and Doherity believe Jesus was a man. One without super-god-powers,

Yes....... Jesus was a real man, as was the Baptist, as were all the disciples.
And G-Mark tells their story very well, even after the supernatural is removed.

Since that statement was written in 2013 Carrier came out with his peer reviewed work which has been turning many historians to full mythicism. Clearly you seem to think you have stumbled onto some great find.
I know all these authors. It's where I learned no one believes in the gospel Jesus, he is myth.
Your source pretty much says so:
"Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus; the miracles, such as turning water into wine, feeding the multitude, walking on water, and various cures, exorcisms, and resurrections; his own resurrection; and certain details about his crucifixion.[73][74][75][76][77][78]

Those scholars agree with me..... not you.
There is no nativity in G-Mark, many of the miracles were spun out of real situations, there was no water in to wine in G-Mark although a good hypnotist could perform that on stage, feeding the multitude has a basis of fact but spun to miracle, walking on water has interesting possibilities, cures and exorcisms could all be baaed on fact (G-Mark), the resurrection didn't happen, and certain details about the crucifixion I have already mentioned before.

And Jesus was real.

Cool then here is an article by Carrier using peer-reviewed papers by FIVE leading scholars on Mark.
You can go over this evidence (like you said you do ) and explain where they go wrong if you don;t agree.
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier

I am not interested in what Paul wrote, nor in anything copied from Paul by Mark, and have told you that Paul knew nor wrote nothing about the mission apart from the last two days of the last week.
This is all repitition.

We know Mark is myth and sources Paul and I've given many sources of scholarship on that. You will find no historian who believes this is a true and accurate account of what happened. It's impossible because he copies other stories line by line.

.......... petitio principii fallacy.
I've already told you that I do not accept the trashing of the whole gospel because of a few aditions and manipulations.

Right except the entire field of biblical historians still believe Mark was the first gospel.
First here is a long scholarly article breaking down how scholars now know Mark was written first and all other gospels relied on Mark for a source. It is written by Christian scholarship and widely accepted as fact:
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

So do I.
But Oral Tradition carried extra reports picked up later by other authors.

They didn't destroy it, they demonstrated over and over that he sourced Paul, took stories from Psalms and other sources and also used OT prophecies and competing mysteryreligion savor gods to construct a story.
This is basic scholarship.
It looks like you completely confused the "christ -myth-theory with the fact that the gospels are mythical.
Christ myth just means there never was a man in 30AD teaching judaism. It doesn't mean the wildly fictitious gospels are real stories. "Historicity" just means there was a man named Jesus. Later myths were created about him. You clearly missed that.

Circular Argument. Round and round.
Much repeated.
Paul didn't write about the mission (save the last two days) so Mark couldn't have copied it all..... and most of the additions were not original.
The first verse was even manipulated! (...son of God)

I already said "historicity" and "mythicism" are being debated. Here at 43:20 a scholar in the field (in 2019) is saying many are leaning towards mythicism now. It is becoming clear that the reasons scholars assumed historicity are not really there and some are admitting it's likely but are not in a position to make that known.
Doesn't matter. We have been discussing Mark using Paul and other sources to which you deny and are continuously being shown to be wrong. That most historians WILL back up.
This new line of argument makes no sense.

You should listen to the entire thing but I do not believe you when you say you listen to evidence.

All tyhe supernatural is mythology.
But built from real happenings.

It does not matter if Jesus was a man or the entire thing is myth. What we know is the gospels are myth. All historians back this up. So your tangent on mythicism is completely missing the point.
I do not care if Jesus was a man. The point is the stories are fiction.

So now you are coming round at last.
Only the supernatural spin is mythological.
But the basic accounts did happen.
Jesus was real. So was the Baptist. So was the reason for their uprising.

Euhemrerization or mythicizing a real person is another widely popular thing in the Bronze Age.
We even see aspects of it in modern history with George Washington and definitely Joseph Smith from Mormonism.
Geez, what a waste of time.

Jesus didn't live in the bronze age, he lived in the iron age, although like today bronze was still used.
The people of Cornwall, who supplied tin to the Phoecicians from Tyre and Sidon 2000 years before Jesus.... they have a tradition that Joseph of Arimathea journeyed there to trade and once brought Jesus with him. But don't let that upset you...........

 

[lukethethird]

Luke............. give it up.
I sincerely and truly believe that any attempts to debate of discuss HJ with you are pointless....... as pointless as debating with a myther.


No Luke........ I don't believe in the above, I'm not even totally sure that Jesus was crucified.



No Luke........ knowing about 'most probables' is just not good science. You can only guess about what 'most probably happened'.

It's all pointless trying to discuss or debate with folks who call out 'total myth' and chuck out the whole history.

I've come to the conclusion that you are a crank and have nothing better to do than spew Bible nonsense.

 

[oldbadger]

I've come to the conclusion that you are a crank and have nothing better to do than spew Bible nonsense.

Hello Luke.....
Well, I can understand how it feels to get thoroughly squashed in a debate and personal feelings can run high.

As you know I agree with the majority of 'peer reviewed' scholars that Jesus the man was real, together with the Baptist, and that number includes atheists, agnostics and a few Christian scholars.

As you know I am not a Christian, but to be put right by a crank must indeed be upsetting for an otherwise smart person like you.

 

[lukethethird]

Hello Luke.....
Well, I can understand how it feels to get thoroughly squashed in a debate and personal feelings can run high.

As you know I agree with the majority of 'peer reviewed' scholars that Jesus the man was real, together with the Baptist, and that number includes atheists, agnostics and a few Christian scholars.

As you know I am not a Christian, but to be put right by a crank must indeed be upsetting for an otherwise smart person like you.

You rejected the sacking of Jerusalem and the temple by the Roman army in 70CE because it disagrees with your Bible stories. I was giving you credit for being a crank because I can't imagine anyone being that deluded. So which is it, are you just a crank and doing this on purpose, or are you really that deluded?

 

[oldbadger]

You rejected the sacking of Jerusalem and the temple by the Roman army in 70CE because it disagrees with your Bible stories. I was giving you credit for being a crank because I can't imagine anyone being that deluded. So which is it, are you just a crank and doing this on purpose, or are you really that deluded?

No Luke.
Try as you might, you won't find any writings of mine which reject the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD.

But I do accept, like those many peer reviewed scholars, that Jesus was a real person.

 

[sojourner]

The reason I would argue that the Gospels are reliable from a historical point of view is because I belive that points 1,2 and 3 are ture:

1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

3 So if an author tries to be accurate and has reliable sources it follows (inductively) that his work is reliable.

if you disagree with ether 1,2 or 3 please let me know why you disagree.




1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

Given the literary genera of the text (Greco roman biography) and the fact that the gosspels are fool of embarrassing details* it seems probable that point 1 is true

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

Given that most of the political, historical, demographic and geographical details** in the gospels are accurate … it seems probable that the authors had access to good sources, otherwise they would have not known those details.

---

*Embarrassing details: Jesus had a humiliating death, Peter denied Jesus, The empty tomb was discovered by woman, he was buried in the tomb of a Jewish Sanhedrin, Jesus had limited knowledge, etc. all these details represented obstacles for the early Christians, (things would have been easier without those embarrassing details)

** There really was a Pilate, there really was a Caiphas, the ratio of common names vs uncommon names are consistent, there really was a Jewish Sanhedrin that had some power and influence over the romans, they villages, towns cities etc. really excisted…………onlyh someone who was there or who had acces to reliable source could have known all these.

I don’t think the authors did intend to write history. These aren’t history texts — at least not in the way we think of history, they’re theological treatments. Their objective is not historical reporting of past events, but to lay theological foundations for the Jesus myth.

Next, none of the authors is an eyewitness — in fact, the Synoptics were, at first, oral stories, not written texts. “Reliable sources” is up for debate. One important source is not even extant.

Perhaps most cogent: This is storytelling well within the tradition of the time and place. “Factual accuracy” was not on their radar.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your argument. Literature that isn’t history by design cannot be “intended to be historical.”

 

[nPeace]

I like how so many 20th century people know all the facts, that they state so dogmatically they know that historians who are known to be such, did not write history, but myth.
Why do we need historians of the past, when we have all these 20th century "historians".

 

[tarasan]

And how does that refute any of the 3 points in the OP?

Sure Luke had one (or few) details wrong vs hundreds of details corrrect.......therefore the text is a reliable historical document.


All ancient historians made mistakes, but we don't simply drop all the documents.

In so far as any ancient historical document is valid the Bible is classed very highly as being so. There aren't alot of people who would debate that point nowadays.

 

[oldbadger]

I don’t think the authors did intend to write history. These aren’t history texts — at least not in the way we think of history, they’re theological treatments. Their objective is not historical reporting of past events, but to lay theological foundations for the Jesus myth.

Next, none of the authors is an eyewitness — in fact, the Synoptics were, at first, oral stories, not written texts. “Reliable sources” is up for debate. One important source is not even extant.

Perhaps most cogent: This is storytelling well within the tradition of the time and place. “Factual accuracy” was not on their radar.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your argument. Literature that isn’t history by design cannot be “intended to be historical.”

Every thing you do, every letter you write, every sound of yours that is recorded, if these survive they become history.

The Gospels were intended to record what was done, so these are historical in themselves, and within them lay the stories of Jesus, the Baptist and their followers.

Enough........

 

[nPeace]

In so far as any ancient historical document is valid the Bible is classed very highly as being so. There aren't alot of people who would debate that point nowadays.

Well, I would say in this day and age of naturalism and materialism, there are a lot of people who are debating that, but not from any well informed position.
Sort of like how a lot of us -me being one of them , are accused of contesting the evolution theory, from an uninformed position.