nPeace
Veteran Member
I have already provided evidence as to why the Bible can be trusted as a source of truth. The Quran does not qualify. ...and yes, what you have is one opinion, which varies from another. ...and here's the thing, the same scholars you quote disagree with each other on various things on the same source.Everything I post can be traced back to evidence that is true.
I don't post critiques of the Bible from 2000 years ago that cannot be sourced or demonstrated to be true.
The writers of the Bible? First there is massive evidence, accepted by all historical scholarship that Matthew and Luke sourced Mark and changed things as they saw fit.
By all means, tell me where the mistake is in these arguments
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is essential in order to see how an author used his sources (both for reliability’s sake as well as for redactional criticism), as...bible.org
John is a separate issue, probably also sourced Mark but that community was definitely far removed and there is excellent evidence of John sourcing Mark.
Next Mark is complete Hellenistic Greek-school fiction. Ring structure, chiasmus, Markan sandwiches and more , can be demonstrated.
Jesus scoring 20 out of 22 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale, can be demonstrated.
Mark using the OT and the Epistles can be demonstrated.
This is using all PhD historical scholarship on Mark -
The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark
Previously, I’ve written about the historicity of Jesus, and mentioned how the most recent analysis, in Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus (the first comprehensive, academica…lagevondissen.wordpress.com
The gospel names were added in late 2nd century. The internal and external evidence is a short book (I can post) and can be fact checked.
The theology can be shown to be the same as earlier Hellenistic deities and Persian apocalyiptic/messianic myths.
All of thsi evidence is solid and unrefutible. Yes I source what I say and turning it around as if it's a bad thing is just more obvious lousy attempts at debating.
If I didn't back it up you would just say I'm making things up. Then when I show it's consensus in a field you call it quote mining, as if I can't see through that.
Now, when a Muslim comes at you and says "all the evidence I need is the Quran", or a Hindu says "all I need to show you is The Bhagavad Gita ", that holds the key to the TRUTH.....
Or even a Jehova's Witness or Mormon can say "the updates given to Joe Smith are the key and the truth", "the new messages revealed to Jehova" are the key..........what would you do? The evidence is the same. A claim of a revelation from God. The Quran is a revelation. No different than Paul and the gospel claims of what Jesus did. Yet suddenly that argument isn't so great is it?
But you get to use special pleading, your magical scrolls are the real magic.
Well, they don't look to be. And endless evidence can demonstrate they are not. You have NEVER responded or countered any of this evidence. You just got to a point where you decided to call it "quote mining".
It's actually called learning. Something apologists don't do because their mind is closed down. They only accept information that confirms what they want to be true.
I would like you to provide actual evidence. You can post scripture. But then you have to accept the Quran and all other claims as well or you are special pleading. Islam and Christianity are getting close in numbers. They say the Quran is the key, the truth, a perfect book, you can never debunk it or duplicate it, and so on. Doesn't make it real. Doesn't make the NT real.
But the NT is very obvious Greek, Persian and Roman mythology.
No devil in the OT. No Heaven. Dead went to Sheol, the grave.
It's not just savior deities, baptism, eucharist, Logos, devils, Revelation that is Pagan, it's everything, remember -
During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[51] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[51] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[52][53] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[53] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is thought to be derived from Persian cosmology,[53] although the later claim has been recently questioned.[54] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[53] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[51] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323–31 BC).[44] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[44]
Sanders, Wright Hundley, good scholars. Taken from source material found in Greek archaeological sites, literature preserved (historians, Josephus...) It can be demonstrated to be pre-Christian beliefs if you read through to the sources.
The gospel writers can also be shown to be writing in the Greek historical-fiction style. Romulus and other Greek writings use the same devices. Homer does as well. Scholar Dennis McDonald (and many others) have papers and monographs available showing Mark used Homer as well as a basic guide to create a story.
Dennis Ronald MacDonald (born 1946) is the John Wesley Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the Claremont School of Theology in California.
In this groundbreaking book, Dennis R. MacDonald offers an entirely new view of the New Testament gospel of Mark. The author of the earliest gospel was not writing history, nor was he merely recording tradition, MacDonald argues. Close reading and careful analysis show that Mark borrowed extensively from the Odyssey and the Iliad andthat he wanted his readers to recognize the Homeric antecedents in Mark’s story of Jesus. Mark was composing a prose anti-epic, MacDonald says, presenting Jesus as a suffering hero modeled after but far superior to traditional Greek heroes.
The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark: Dennis R. MacDonald: 9780300172614: Amazon.com: Books
The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark [Dennis R. MacDonald] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Markwww.amazon.com
So, yeah, it's fiction. It holds the key to writing good mythology. The evidence is vast. McDonald's work is not consensus, I'll point that out.
Oh David Litwa has a new work on demonstrating Jesus' deification was modeled after widely recognized traits of Mediterranean deities. Again, a work of fiction. This work is not contested at all by scholars. This is pretty much consensus in history.
What does it mean for Jesus to be deified in early Christian literature? Early Christians did not simply assert Jesus divinity; in their literature, they depicted Jesus with the specific and widely recognized traits of Mediterranean deities.Relying on the methods of the history of religions and ranging judiciously across Hellenistic literature, M. David Litwa shows that at each stage in their depiction of Jesus life and ministry, early Christian writings from the beginning relied on categories drawn not from Judaism alone, but on a wide, pan-Mediterranean understanding of deity.
So, how can you call it a reliable source of evidence of anything, when they cannot agree, half the time.
Sounds more like a case of, "Well this opinion suits me fine, so I believe it." "Oh, and I like this one better, so I will go with this."
That's all you have, like it or not.
