Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[lukethethird]

Whoa! You haven't shown that they are. That's just your pet opinion.


That's your opinion!
The FACT that Priesthood corruption and greed existed, and hypocrisy and the FACT that the Temple coin was a disgusting thing to even touch, coupled with what the Baptist was saying and doing..... shows a clear picture as shown in G-Mark.

Jesus said it all when he exclaimed @I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.

It builds from there.


Ah ha ha ha!
My scholar is better than your scholars! Waaaaa!
All them other scholars are corrupted but not mine! Waaaa!

As it happens I don't rely on any of them, but the fact that you scream out for 'peer-reviewed' opinion from everybody and then trash in to the dustbin all the 'peer-reviewed' scholars whose opinions don't fit yours is just so funny.

The story is about a godman with supernatural powers set in a real time and place on earth much like Superman, the difference being Superman is not a religious figure set in the ancient middle east, otherwise you'd be making the same arguments for him as you read your Bible and imagine what it was like.

 

[nPeace]

Tacitus is not a contemporary independent confirmation of Jesus.
It's instead just reporting on what christians believed.

I'm well aware that most scholars think a historical Jesus existing is likely. I agree with that.
But I see no reason to lie about the evidence to support that.



None of what you wrote in that post refutes anything I was saying.

Instead it was a display of extreme intellectual dishonesty, which is why I didn't feel like replying anymore.

For example, your wacky claim that 75% of scientists are "creationists". I don't even know how to respond to such stupidity.

The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution theory. I'm talking +99%
So your claim that 75% of them are creationists is simply bizar and a testament to the amount of delusion (or deliberate dishonesty) that goes on in your head.



In that very link, it is made clear that the Josephus reference is likely a forgery and that the Tacitus reference is reporting on who christians are and what they believed.

What the Tacitus reference shows is that early christians believed in Jesus and his crucifiction. Tacitus doesn't question that because he knows that crucifiction was common and he has no reason to question it. But he is reporting what christians believed. He is not reporting Roman records. He is reporting about what christians believed. He is actually talking about christians and simply detailing who they are and what they believed.

IF there was no historical jesus, then still Tacitus would have written what he wrote - because he's simply explaining who christians are.

That is what I'm saying.

You don't seem to be understanding that.

I really wonder about you, honestly.
I hope you are not working too hard, and your family is well.

You seem to not know what is being discussed a lot of times. Perhaps you don't remember because of your work. I don't know, but I will try to be more understanding.
While I do believe your excuses are feeble, I will not dwell on them.

You made the claim - ridiculous as it was, and obviously not well thought out - that, and I quote,... "You being a creationist tells us all we need to know about your grasp of how science is done". Unquote.

I don't think we need a translation for that.
So I simply responded "Wow. Being a creationist makes one unable to grasp how science is done. There goes 75% of the science community."
Yes I threw in a random number, but so what... I was just making a point - that your thoughtless nonsensical response was just that - thoughtless and nonsensical.

The number is more accurately 55%, but who's counting... Point is, it was a stupid comment.
So why you see the need to mention evolution and 99% scientists, is outside what was being discussed - it's irrelevant.

Next, you said.... Quote Because exactly ZERO details about Jesus are verifiable because no extra-biblical sources about the dude exist. Unquote.
That is absolutely false, as all investigative studies show, but because you repeated it, you insist it must be true.
Your ramblings about what you are saying are irrelevant. I was dealing with what you said.

Hope you have a good evening, and workday.

 

[nPeace]

Actually the author of Mark was not familiar with the area which is why scholars have suggested that the author was from elsewhere. The author of Matthew corrected the geographical mistakes when he copied gMark.

Do you find that makes sense?
Why would someone who knows more facts about geography and culture see the need to copy someone ignorant of those facts.
Why not research all the other facts for oneself, if one is going to change the others?

Sounds like one big conspiracy theory to me, but then conspiracy theorist are a dime a dozen.

 

[leroy]

Not only is Carrier's skepticism not "crazy" he isn't skeptic. He's doing history exactly how it's supposed to be done. Jesus fits into a literary group of demigods who are ALL not real.

why?

There where dozens of alleged miracle workers and alleged messiahs in Palestine within the firs century………………why couldn’t Jesus be one more?

. Carrier is not bound to a University so he can say what he finds to be true.

He makes a living out of denying the existence of Jesus. He is obviously biased.

We cannot know for sure.

Because its ancient history, nothing can’t be known “for sure” in ancient history

But if multiple sources identify a James that was the brother of Jesus, then probably Jesus had a brother named James. To me this sounds more possible than

Paul mentioned a “spiritual brohtether” named James, Mark copied from paul, but he liked more the idea of a biological brother, then the other sources copied form mark, but didn’t corrected Marks mistake, then Josephus heard a rumor that it was a biological brother and the church fathers where also misinformed.

These are strange questions? First writing fictional biographies for fictional characters was something that Greek writers were trained in. Although Mark clearly understood how to write myths as noted by his frequent use of ring structure, inversions and other devices he needed a story. Christians assumed he was told the actual story of Jesus. Since there is no actual story of Jesus the demigod with God-powers he had to find an outline.

Ok but my objection is:

If Mark copied form Paul, and Paul meant “spiritual brother” then why didn’t mark also claimed “spiritual brother”?......... James didn’t do anything interesting in Marks Gospel anyway, so why would he lie?

This is why he uses narratives from several OT stories as well as Paul's letters.
But the Epistles are vague and have no earthly Jesus so he works with what he has

The epistles describe a Jesus who was crucified, buried, had a brother, had disciples, was descended from Abraham, was a jew, born form a woman, ate bread, etc…. to me this sounds as thing that an earthly and historical person would do. …… honestly how do you crucify and burry someone who lives in heaven?

The epistles are not Vague, Paul clearly and unambiguously was talking about a historical person

He also creates a family, events, miracles and more. This is why he would give Jesus a brother.

But the brother didn’t do anything relevant; honestly James could have been a spiritual brother in Mark and nothing in his gospel would change,

I already told you he is not writing science fiction. Your repeatedly saying this shows another aspect you do not understand. These are myths. Just savior resurrecting demigods alone the Egyptians had one, the Thracians had one, the Syrians had one, the Persians had one, and so on. Every culture had religious scripture and they were often being updated as new ideas arrived.

Do any of those myths put mythological creatures in real places and interacting with real and historical persons?...........I am talking about random unimportant places and random and unimportant historical person as we have then in the gospels.

Ehrman cleaned up the later additions to Josephus words and there was nothing about James

spurce


.

Even if there were why couldn't he have just heard it from someone who read Mark?

The thing is that according to Carrier, it was not supposed to be a secret, early Christians openly admitted that they were worshiping a non-historical guy that appeared in dreams and visions, and presumably they wouldn’t have any problem in admitting that James was a spiritual brother,

James would have been largely known to be a “spiritual brother” so Josephus would have known that, besides James is irrelevant in gospels, Josephus woudl have not based his information about James in the Gospels.


What Church fathers? We know of Bishop Ireaneus who thought the Gnostics were heretics and they thought his group were heretics. The 2nd century had a first official canon and it was the Marcionite canon which we know nothing about. The early Christians were divided into heavily Gnostic type groups with a demiurge and Jesus was only a spirit to more orthadox groups. So there is nothing there to give us accurate information.

Hegesippus, and Esibious woudl be exampels of Church fathers that identify James as the brother of Jesus

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people

James was named a bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles: "James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles".[40] Jerome wrote the same: "James... after our Lord's passion... ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem..." and that James "ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years".[41]

James, brother of Jesus - Wikipedia

Uh, no you do history like your supposed to. Not with a bias opinion up from that some person in stories is definitely real. There are countless sources that prove facts about the life of Columbus

Yes but any source that claims that Columbus had brothers can be dismissed “maybe the author didn’t meant biological brothers” maybe they were just friends,

 

[lukethethird]

Do you find that makes sense?
Why would someone who knows more facts about geography and culture see the need to copy someone ignorant of those facts.
Why not research all the other facts for oneself, if one is going to change the others?

Sounds like one big conspiracy theory to me, but then conspiracy theorist are a dime a dozen.

The author of Matthew copied gMark and added a birth story and some post resurrection. Read about the synoptic problem.

 

[lukethethird]

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.

Why does anyone feel they have to go on the internet and proclaim that Jesus is real?

Why do you feel it necessary to take it upon yourself to find Jesus a place in history?

Do you have a need to convince yourself because the history books are lacking in this respect?

 

[nPeace]

The author of Matthew copied gMark and added a birth story and some post resurrection. Read about the synoptic problem.

You are nowhere near 2,000 years old, so lukethethird copied a number of people who are misled by their own stories - made up, of course.... 'cause they don't know.
Look how easily you became part of that synoptic problem.

 

[joelr]

why?

There where dozens of alleged miracle workers and alleged messiahs in Palestine within the firs century………………why couldn’t Jesus be one more?

Yes, he was one more? Alleged messiahs and fake stories. We still have fake miracle workers today.
I don't rule out historicity. There are just evidence that also suggests the whole thing was myth.

He makes a living out of denying the existence of Jesus. He is obviously biased.

No, he's a historian. He started the historicity study expecting to confirm historicity. He looked at evidence that hadn't been really looked at for a long time. He backs up everything with facts and has done many debates against top biblical scholars. So he stands by his information and scholarship.
HE set out to do a proper study which is basically the main difference between masters degree and Doctrate is you learn how to work with original sources and to understand how to properly interpret information by understanding the original languages, writing styles from the time and so forth.
No biblical historian believes in the mythos of any ancient religion.

Because its ancient history, nothing can’t be known “for sure” in ancient history

As I have been pointing out we have many excellent clues that help explain what was going on.

But if multiple sources identify a James that was the brother of Jesus, then probably Jesus had a brother named James. To me this sounds more possible than

First it wasn't multiple sources. Carrier's view (and other scholars he mentions in the article) find the entire passage to be a late Christian forgery. Ehrman finds it to be doctored. But there is still no reference to James.
So only Paul. One time.

Paul mentioned a “spiritual brohtether” named James, Mark copied from paul, but he liked more the idea of a biological brother, then the other sources copied form mark, but didn’t corrected Marks mistake, then Josephus heard a rumor that it was a biological brother and the church fathers where also misinformed.

No,no,no,no. Mark did not make a mistake. Mark created an earthly narrative for Jesus. He took Jesus's words to future Christians about his body as a bread metaphor and he CHANGED IT INTO A SUPPER with a large group of people.
He created all sorts of events, miracles, he wrote a fictional biography for a demigod. This is actually a common thing called Euhererization.
Josephus was either a total fabrication by later Christians or partial. Either way the brother thing isn't there. That is a late addition by later Christians.
Even if it wasn't, how would you know Josephus didn't read Mark??????

Ok but my objection is:

If Mark copied form Paul, and Paul meant “spiritual brother” then why didn’t mark also claimed “spiritual brother”?......... James didn’t do anything interesting in Marks Gospel anyway, so why would he lie?

He didn't "lie"? There are 2 apostles who are named James? Mark gave Jesus a full family also.
In Matthew they use that same language "Simon and Andrew his brother" meaning another apostle.

Mark is really using a lot of outside sources as detailed in the article about why he invented the empty toumb:
Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier

Here is a article from PBS on Mark, what they are saying is pretty clear, that he is creating a narrative from many sources. The word-of mouth is not supported by historians as being a thing.
"
The gospel of Mark is the second to appear in the New Testament, but most scholars now agree that it was composed first. While the work is attributed to "Mark," we will probably never know the author's true identity, for it was common practice in the ancient world to enhance the importance of written works by attributing them to famous people. Whoever he was, Mark's gospel was the first to attempt to tell the story of the life and the death of Jesus. He probably drew on written collections of miracle stories, on parables, and perhaps on a written account of Jesus' death. Mark combined these disparate elements with other traditions passed on by word-of-mouth to create a new narrative that began the gospel tradition.

Whether Mark himself was a gentile or a Jew remains a subject of scholarly debate. So, too, does the place of his composition; some scholars think that he wrote his work in Rome, others that he wrote in Alexandria, still others suggest Syria. The way Mark tells the story suggests that his audience lived outside the homeland, spoke Greek rather than Aramaic, and was not familiar with Jewish customs. "
The Story Of The Storytellers - The Gospel Of Mark | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

The epistles describe a Jesus who was crucified, buried, had a brother, had disciples, was descended from Abraham, was a jew, born form a woman, ate bread, etc…. to me this sounds as thing that an earthly and historical person would do. …… honestly how do you crucify and burry someone who lives in heaven?

The epistles are not Vague, Paul clearly and unambiguously was talking about a historical person

Christian scholarship only recognizes 7 of the Epistles as authentic.


" but from the 16th century onwards opinion steadily moved against Pauline authorship and few scholars now ascribe it to Paul, mostly because it does not read like any of his other epistles in style and content.[1] Most scholars agree that Paul actually wrote seven of the Pauline epistles, but that four of the epistles in Paul's name are pseudepigraphic (Ephesians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus[2]) and that two other epistles are of questionable authorship (Second Thessalonians and Colossians)"

As to actual historians they are all in agreementt that Paul knows of no earthly Jesus, his life or ministry, miracles, family, nothing. Just that Paul had a vision and he heard about scripture and followers.

But the brother didn’t do anything relevant; honestly James could have been a spiritual brother in Mark and nothing in his gospel would change,

In Mark 3:17 there is a James aposltle.
He just happened to give Jesus a brother named James.

Do any of those myths put mythological creatures in real places and interacting with real and historical persons?...........I am talking about random unimportant places and random and unimportant historical person as we have then in the gospels.

First if you read that article about Mark creating the empty toumb you will see there were no unimportant meetings or people in his gospel. Everything had a meaning. It's a very dense story with hidden meanings and parables.
But yes, saviors and other gods were often originally doing their acts in the upper realms and later were euhemerized to earth where a fictional narrative on earth was created. The name is after the fist god who had this done Euhemeris.

The entire Bhagavad Gita is Krishna counciling Pandava prince Arjuna at the start of a war.

Many of the other resurrecting saviors interacted with followers as well. Osiris ascended to the celestial ream after resurrecting but would come back into a mortal body each year and interact with people. This was an annual event


.

The thing is that according to Carrier, it was not supposed to be a secret, early Christians openly admitted that they were worshiping a non-historical guy that appeared in dreams and visions, and presumably they wouldn’t have any problem in admitting that James was a spiritual brother,

He was a spiritual brother, he's an apostle. Mark also gave Jesus a brother named James.

James would have been largely known to be a “spiritual brother” so Josephus would have known that, besides James is irrelevant in gospels, Josephus woudl have not based his information about James in the Gospels.

Why not? Again, those writings are most likely later additions by Christians.

Hegesippus, and Esibious woudl be exampels of Church fathers that identify James as the brother of Jesus


James, brother of Jesus - Wikipedia

Those are all late sources, way after the gospels. The article is all over the place with James -
"Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, as well as some Anglicans and Lutherans, teach that James, along with others named in the New Testament as "brothers"[note 1] of Jesus, were not the biological children of Mary, but were possibly cousins of Jesus,[4] or half-brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph (as related in the Gospel of James).[5][note 2]

Roman tradition holds that this James is to be identified with James, son of Alphaeus, and James the Less.[9]

The gospels gave Jesus a real family and the church fathers took the story literal.

There are issues with Eusibius


How To Fabricate History: The Example of Eusebius on Alexandrian Christianity • Richard Carrier

Yes but any source that claims that Columbus had brothers can be dismissed “maybe the author didn’t meant biological brothers” maybe they were just friends,

And so we look at all evidence that can be found. If you look into Mark he is not writing anything historical. Paul does call apostles brothers. Mark even took that to mean apostle because he made an apostle named James!

 

[joelr]

Actually the author of Mark was not familiar with the area which is why scholars have suggested that the author was from elsewhere. The author of Matthew corrected the geographical mistakes when he copied gMark.

See that Leroy, Mark is suspected to be from elsewhere.

 

[joelr]

I produced that list of historians that agree that Jesus was a real person.
The main body of historians agree on that.

That is changing. They do however believe the gospel narratives are myth. Like I have been saying.

It's not your argument, joelr. I see you as an armchair atheist who read some books and has stretched their findings to fit your fantasy theory.

More dishonesty. First your opinion of me is super-irrelevant. Then you diminisih yourself further by suggesting that scholarship is full of "fantasy theories". So that was another fail.

I backed up every point with current scholarship and have explained that the idea that the gospels are a mythic narrative is consensus in the history field. I know this because I read and watch lectures often by scholars in the field.
No matter how hard you try to put this down you always come off as an uneducated person who has nothing but crank theories.

You rely on some kind of Argumentum ad Verecundia by clinging to a very few myther historians and disregarding those that don't fit your theory.

While the current debate is historicity vs mythicism "mythicism means Jesus was a myth. This has nothing to do with the gospels. All historians know this is a big mythic fiction. Carrier, Bart Ehrman, Richard Purvoe, and many others.
The actions of Jesus in the gospels scores almost 100% on the Rank-Ragalin mythotype scale. This isn't in contention.
Everyone knows this. This means the gospels are not history, they are fiction.

Hooray! At last!
A beginning!

Now........ which names could have been real?
Which ones? Can you build a list?

Yes the places are real places. Characters are written to fulfill storyline and narrative purposes so we cannot know anything about them. They are probably all made up.

You need to shout that out. But it cannot help you.
The Gospel of Mark, stripped of it's evangelical fiddlings, becomes (imo) a kind of deposition, joelr.
And by your own rules you cannot trash it with any judgement of yours..... You need to quote 'peer reviewed' scholars that have come to that decision, and then I can quote 'peer reviewed' scholars that think there is historical value in them. That's your rules I'm playing by, and since more scholars agree with my feelings than yours......
Using your own rules you have lost.

You have yet to produce one historian or paper that explains that the gospels contain history? What are you talking about? I shouted because you are incredibly hard to make understand simple concepts? Historicity means a man named Jesus lived and taught. Details about his life a extremely few. EVERY historian who believes historicity will say this.

Did you just have a little moment where you thought you were not all crank? No, you are .

That's why don't listen to you, joelr.........
You need to actually quote the actual words of any scholars who demand that the whole gospel is fantasy fiction. Their words, not yours.
By your standards your argument is of no value.
All you can do is copy paste the EXACT words of historians..

Right except you left off the other half of what I said. So now you think resorting to lies will help you? Can't hurt at this point. I said if you want to do history you need a degree. If not then use scholarship to make your case.
Which you cannot do.

JDC........ you claim to be familiar with his work. So what was Jesus in his viewpoint?

HE thinks the divine thing was a metaphor and the Thomas gospel is more related to what Jesus actually said.
He doesn't think the gospels are historical at all.

Love it! Your cries are so much fun.
My chosen historian is better than your chosen historians! Waaaaa!
My rules count, only mine....... Waaaaa!

Uh,what cries? Now you imagine things.
You haven't presented any historians who back your ideas. Not one.
As I have stated none of those scholars believe the gospel stories are anything but stories.
Whoops, you forgot to respond to that. Oopsy.

We used to get this trash on RF years ago. One member would wave their chosen scholar's name about to prove everything, then another member would wave theirs. Armchair debaters who read a book or two and trashed all the others.

It's ironic and of poor character to put down someone who is at least trying to educate themselves on a topic. So much classier than just arguing nonsense with nothing to back it up.
Anyway, this isn't what I'm doing because I have studied the entire field and what the consensus opinions are in the field.

It's cute that you have now switched to trying to paint some picture that you have presented any scholars at all who support any idea you have. Then go on to try and diminish education and proper debate. Even calling it trash? As if people cannot prepare for a debate. You are really sinking to the bottom here.

Pathetic. I've been studying the gospels for a long time, and my only qualification for doing so is that I can be objective and am a fairly good investigator. I feel quite confident to propose why the Baptist did what he did, how Jesus joined his ranks and later tried to carry it forward, and where it all ended.

Cool, what scholarship will you present to back your claim? Amateur work is crank so I hope you are not just crank.

I don't think that you have researched anything..... you just keep wailing on about your chosen scholar's ideas and somehow spinning ALL of the gospel in to fantasy.

Wow, thanks for telling me what you think, super helpful. The gospels have been demonstrated to be myth in many ways. RR scale. Papers on how Mark used Paul. A great article based on Carriers book examining the mythic literary devices, OT narratives and other stories Mark used.
An article from a PHD on Marks sources and why he created the empty tomb. Which reveals many more pieces of evidence he was writing fiction, why and using what sources.
Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier

Your epic fail at debunking the few examples I gave from a different article were poor. You will need to present some scholarship showing how all these are getting it wrong. You epic fail above that I'm just "wailing" on about my chosen scholars is truly epic.
ALl those works I just mentioned and here are more:

4 part essay on Marks use of myth and sources
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark

Mark uses Paul

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier

Your new tactic is debunk the use of scholarship. Don't care. Speaks volumes.

I think you might be what I call an aggressive atheist myther, not content with just your opinions but devoted to crushing other people's faiths under feet in front of them. I am a Deist so you'll have trouble with me on that, joelr.

Right except, OOPS, you wrote me first HA HA!
This is another familiar tactic, when you lose the debate you go after motivations and call them an aggressive meanie. Boring. Of course, you came at me with your opinion HA HA! It didn't work out so now go with this tactic. I am for critical thinking. My opinions changed when I applied critical thinking.
I was open to scholarship that backed your claim. It's not my fault you have beliefs unsupported by experts.

 

[oldbadger]

The story is about a godman with supernatural powers set in a real time and place on earth much like Superman, the difference being Superman is not a religious figure set in the ancient middle east, otherwise you'd be making the same arguments for him as you read your Bible and imagine what it was like.

You and your wacky analogies.

The story was about a good man who objected so much to the Temple's careless corruption that he offered cleansing and redemption to the working classes of Jews for free, and he got arrested for interfering with Temple takings. And then Jesus tried to carry that baton for a time.

 

[oldbadger]

That is changing. They do however believe the gospel narratives are myth. Like I have been saying.

More dishonesty. First your opinion of me is super-irrelevant. Then you diminisih yourself further by suggesting that scholarship is full of "fantasy theories". So that was another fail.

I backed up every point with current scholarship and have explained that the idea that the gospels are a mythic narrative is consensus in the history field. I know this because I read and watch lectures often by scholars in the field.
No matter how hard you try to put this down you always come off as an uneducated person who has nothing but crank theories.

While the current debate is historicity vs mythicism "mythicism means Jesus was a myth. This has nothing to do with the gospels. All historians know this is a big mythic fiction. Carrier, Bart Ehrman, Richard Purvoe, and many others.
The actions of Jesus in the gospels scores almost 100% on the Rank-Ragalin mythotype scale. This isn't in contention.
Everyone knows this. This means the gospels are not history, they are fiction.

Yes the places are real places. Characters are written to fulfill storyline and narrative purposes so we cannot know anything about them. They are probably all made up.

You have yet to produce one historian or paper that explains that the gospels contain history? What are you talking about? I shouted because you are incredibly hard to make understand simple concepts? Historicity means a man named Jesus lived and taught. Details about his life a extremely few. EVERY historian who believes historicity will say this.

Did you just have a little moment where you thought you were not all crank? No, you are .

Right except you left off the other half of what I said. So now you think resorting to lies will help you? Can't hurt at this point. I said if you want to do history you need a degree. If not then use scholarship to make your case.
Which you cannot do.

HE thinks the divine thing was a metaphor and the Thomas gospel is more related to what Jesus actually said.
He doesn't think the gospels are historical at all.


Uh,what cries? Now you imagine things.
You haven't presented any historians who back your ideas. Not one.
As I have stated none of those scholars believe the gospel stories are anything but stories.
Whoops, you forgot to respond to that. Oopsy.

It's ironic and of poor character to put down someone who is at least trying to educate themselves on a topic. So much classier than just arguing nonsense with nothing to back it up.
Anyway, this isn't what I'm doing because I have studied the entire field and what the consensus opinions are in the field.

It's cute that you have now switched to trying to paint some picture that you have presented any scholars at all who support any idea you have. Then go on to try and diminish education and proper debate. Even calling it trash? As if people cannot prepare for a debate. You are really sinking to the bottom here.

Cool, what scholarship will you present to back your claim? Amateur work is crank so I hope you are not just crank.

Wow, thanks for telling me what you think, super helpful. The gospels have been demonstrated to be myth in many ways. RR scale. Papers on how Mark used Paul. A great article based on Carriers book examining the mythic literary devices, OT narratives and other stories Mark used.
An article from a PHD on Marks sources and why he created the empty tomb. Which reveals many more pieces of evidence he was writing fiction, why and using what sources.
Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier

Your epic fail at debunking the few examples I gave from a different article were poor. You will need to present some scholarship showing how all these are getting it wrong. You epic fail above that I'm just "wailing" on about my chosen scholars is truly epic.
ALl those works I just mentioned and here are more:

4 part essay on Marks use of myth and sources
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark

Mark uses Paul

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier

Your new tactic is debunk the use of scholarship. Don't care. Speaks volumes.


Right except, OOPS, you wrote me first HA HA!
This is another familiar tactic, when you lose the debate you go after motivations and call them an aggressive meanie. Boring. Of course, you came at me with your opinion HA HA! It didn't work out so now go with this tactic. I am for critical thinking. My opinions changed when I applied critical thinking.
I was open to scholarship that backed your claim. It's not my fault you have beliefs unsupported by experts.

TLDR

 

[leroy]

He was a spiritual brother, he's an apostle. Mark also gave Jesus a brother named James.


!

I am confused, do who was the James in Pauls letters?

Was he talking about the James the apostle or was he talking about the guy who latter bacame a biological brother in mark ?

 

[lukethethird]

You and your wacky analogies.

The story was about a good man who objected so much to the Temple's careless corruption that he offered cleansing and redemption to the working classes of Jews for free, and he got arrested for interfering with Temple takings. And then Jesus tried to carry that baton for a time.

Reading your Bible I see, don't let me disturb you.

 

[leroy]

No. I know it because I read it and know a thing or two about basic history.
Yes, the quran -just like the bible- includes real people, real events and real places. It recalls the history of mecca, medina, battles, etc.

No doubt that the Koran mentions that kind of stuff, but the question is: Is the Koran accurate when it talks about history, people, geography, demographics etc.?

It's you who thinks the bible is somehow "special".

It´s not “special” there are hundreds of ancient documents that are reliable … my suggestion is that the gospels should be considered in that list of reliable documents because:

1 the authors intended to write what actually happened

2 the authors had access to reliable sources


both of this points have been suported in the OP

*many ancient documents report miracles, but we still take then as reliable sources, historians know how to deal with miracles.

Except that it is clear that your OP is an attempt at attaching the supernatural claims to the verifiable claims. To argue that because it gets A and B correct, then C and D are likely also correct, to rationalize your religious beliefs.

My personal attempts are irrelevant, … you can accept the OP and reject miracles and all the theological stuff that you don’t like. As I said before you can argue that the miracles are missinterpretations, legends or exaggerations of what actually happened.

There are exactly ZERO extra-biblical sources about Jesus.
People who are just repeating what christians believed a century after the facts do not count.

Ok so would you reject all the sources that where written a century after the event? Or are you just making an arbitrary exception with the gospels?

It's not arbitrary at all.
The bible is the claim. Verification of biblical claims must necessarily be extra-biblical. Unless you don't mind circular reasoning, off course.

Again more nonsense, the bible is a bunch of independent documents, each documents falls or stands by their own merits.

If 2 independent documents report the same event then it counts as multiple attestations,..............

1. Alexander the Great isn't the subject of a religion
2. There are many independent sources for Alexander the Great, which aren't merely repeats from claims coming from religious believers.

interesting, but you ignored my point.

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”

My point is that 2 independent sources don’t become “the same source” just because someone decided to put them in the same book 400 years after they were written. … do you agree with this point?

 

[leroy]

Yes, he was one more? Alleged messiahs and fake stories. We still have fake miracle workers today.
I don't rule out historicity. There are just evidence that also suggests the whole thing was myth.

Well most scholars believe that the gospels are from the genera of Greco-Roman biographies, Carrier claims that they are myth (like Hercules, ) what evidence suggests that they are myth?

First it wasn't multiple sources. Carrier's view (and other scholars he mentions in the article) find the entire passage to be a late Christian forgery. Ehrman finds it to be doctored. But there is still no reference to James.
So only Paul. One time.

The passage of James by Josephus is largely uncontroversial and accepted by modern scholars as authentic.

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.
Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

No,no,no,no. Mark did not make a mistake. Mark created an earthly narrative for Jesus. He took Jesus's words to future Christians about his body as a bread metaphor and he CHANGED IT INTO A SUPPER with a large group of people.
He created all sorts of events, miracles, he wrote a fictional biography for a demigod. This is actually a common thing called Euhererization.

But it remains unexplainable why is it that Mark labeled James as a biological brother, when he was a “spiritual brother”

James could have been a spiritual brother in Mark and nothing in the gospels would change,

Even if it wasn't, how would you know Josephus didn't read Mark??????

Because Josephus provides details about James that are not found in mark , this means that Josephus had other sources…

In Matthew they use that same language "Simon and Andrew his brother" meaning another apostle.

I dont see the point, sure Simon and Andrew where biological brothers and they both where disciples.



"

The gospel of Mark is the second to appear in the New Testament, but most scholars now agree that it was composed first. While the work is attributed to "Mark," we will probably never know the author's true identity, for it was common practice in the ancient world to enhance the importance of written works by attributing them to famous people. Whoever he was, Mark's gospel was the first to attempt to tell the story of the life and the death of Jesus. He probably drew on written collections of miracle stories, on parables, and perhaps on a written account of Jesus' death. Mark combined these disparate elements with other traditions passed on by word-of-mouth to create a new narrative that began the gospel tradition.

ok that source indicates that Mark thought of Jesus as a historical person. whats your point?

As to actual historians they are all in agreementt that Paul knows of no earthly Jesus, his life or ministry, miracles, family, nothing. Just that Paul had a vision and he heard about scripture and followers.

I am confused, did paul and peter had the same vision? Did paul copied form peter? Did peter copied from paul?

Who had the vision of the guy named Jesus that was crucified, buried and resurrected?

(this is an honest question)

In Mark 3:17 there is a James aposltle.
He just happened to give Jesus a brother named James.

Ok so that James is not the same james that Paul mentioned?

Many of the other resurrecting saviors interacted with followers as well.

.
But where the followers real historical people?

Those are all late sources, way after the gospels. The article is all over the place with James -
"Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, as well as some Anglicans and Lutherans, teach that James, along with others named in the New Testament as "brothers"[note 1] of Jesus, were not the biological children of Mary, but were possibly cousins of Jesus,[4] or half-brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph (as related in the Gospel of James).[5][note 2]

More points in favor of the brotherhood of James, The church likes to proclaim the Marry was a virgin during her whole life, So if anything the brothers of Jesus was an embracing detail because it proves that Marry was not a virgin her whole life.

If Paul Meant “ Spiritual brother” the church fathers would have been happy to accept that interpretation

 

[lukethethird]

Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

Nice try but since the question has to be asked, obviously no, they're not.

 

[joelr]

I am confused, do who was the James in Pauls letters?

Was he talking about the James the apostle or was he talking about the guy who latter bacame a biological brother in mark ?

We cannot know what Paul meant but as we have discussed Paul does use the word to describe apostles.

Mark keeps the names of the apostles and adds a family for Jesus. He clearly puts James the apostle as a different person than a biological brother. Not just James but several brothers and a sister are added in the gospels. In the authentic Epistles Paul knows of no earthly events related to Jesus. To just randomly say he had a brother yet never speak about a ministry or events would be odd.


Gospel of Mark Mark the Evangelist mentions a "James, son of Alphaeus" only once and this is in his list of the 12 Apostles (Mark 3:16–19).

On the topic of making up a family and the topic of "why would gospel writers lie?" here is an example of both. The Infancy Gospels which were rejected but tell stories of Jesus as a child abusing his powers, killing a child for bothering him, making clay birds into real birds and eventually resurrecting the people he killed.
Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

If you read through any of the alternate gospels like the Thomas gospel 60 to 140 AD they are written to be sincere. In 3AD when a strict canon was announced all of the others became illegal and were destroyed or hidden.

 

[oldbadger]

Is that short for, "I'm a sore loser who will now pretend I didn't read your response"

You wish.........

 

[leroy]

Mark keeps the names of the apostles and adds a family for Jesus. He clearly puts James the apostle as a different person than a biological brother. Not just James but several brothers and a sister are added in the gospels. In the authentic Epistles Paul knows of no earthly events related to Jesus. To just randomly say he had a brother yet never speak about a ministry or events would be odd.


Gospel of Mark Mark the Evangelist mentions a "James, son of Alphaeus" only once and this is in his list of the 12 Apostles (Mark 3:16–19).

Ok so who was the James the supposed brother of Jesus in the gospels?

Was he the same James that Paul mentions? Was he James the Apostole? Or was mark just inventing random names, and “James” happened to be the name that he chose for Jesus´s older brother?

We cannot know what Paul meant but as we have discussed Paul does use the word to describe apostles.

Yes but in the context of Galatians Paul is Cleary implying that Peter and the Apostles where not “brothers” (only James) implying that he meant biological brother…….. if he would have meant “spiritual brother” he would have not excluded Peter and the Apostles from that label.


Galatians 1:18-19

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.
I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.

Another important point is that Josephus talks about the death of James, something that is not present in the gospels, this means that Josephus didn’t use mark as a source, because Mark doesn’t talk about the death of James. .. so Josephus had other sources that also identify james as the brother of Jesus.

Also keep in mind that the historical existence of James is corroborated in multiple independent sources, and none of this sources denied that James is the biological brother of Jesus,

On the topic of making up a family and the topic of "why would gospel writers lie?" here is an example of both. The Infancy Gospels which were rejected but tell stories of Jesus as a child abusing his powers, killing a child for bothering him, making clay birds into real birds and eventually resurrecting the people he killed.
Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

If you read through any of the alternate gospels like the Thomas gospel 60 to 140 AD they are written to be sincere. In 3AD when a strict canon was announced all of the others became illegal and were destroyed or hidden.

The other gospels where not illegal, nor hidden, the documents have always been available for anyone interested in reading them ,

The gospel of Thomas was a myth, like King Arthur or Robbin Hood, you don’t have the accuracy of geographical, historical political and demographic details that you have in the canonical gospels.