Reliability of the Gospels
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2012, 04:52 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(13-12-2012 04:34 PM)Free Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 04:07 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Can you tell us what your opinion of the gospels, minus the miracles and supernatural events, is then? Do you think they're accurate historically? Do you think they're pushing wisdom?

I ask because you seem to be passionately defending something (their validity?), but I can't work out what or why. You gave the same impression in the Paul thread when you insisted Paul was talking about "Jesus."

When we take away the miracles and much of the narrative, we have the Q source.



So are you going to answer my question?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 05:43 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(13-12-2012 04:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 04:34 PM)Free Wrote:  When we take away the miracles and much of the narrative, we have the Q source.



So are you going to answer my question?
I did. But let me elaborate.

When we take away much of the narrative, and the supposed miracles in the gospel records, we are left with what historians believe would be the original historical source regarding the teachings of Yeshua.

You may already know that historians have already concluded that the synoptic Gospels all used the same source, with each gospel writer then expanding the narrative and adding in the miracles.

So I defend that part of the Gospel record which demonstrates the common source for the synoptics as being historically plausible.

Since we also have the Gospel of Thomas which has 144 sayings of Jesus, of which more than half can be found in the canon, we therefore have yet another source very close to what a Q document would look like that verifies much of the gospel records in regards to the teachings of Yeshua.

It's all about cross-examination, Mark, and how to reach the most plausible argument to explain the evidence. When you look at one piece of the puzzle, you can easily tear it apart. However, when you see the whole picture, then you cannot so easily tear it apart.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 06:08 PM (This post was last modified: 13-12-2012 06:19 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(13-12-2012 05:43 PM)Free Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 04:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So are you going to answer my question?
I did. But let me elaborate.

When we take away much of the narrative, and the supposed miracles in the gospel records, we are left with what historians believe would be the original historical source regarding the teachings of Yeshua.

You may already know that historians have already concluded that the synoptic Gospels all used the same source, with each gospel writer then expanding the narrative and adding in the miracles.

So I defend that part of the Gospel record which demonstrates the common source for the synoptics as being historically plausible.

Since we also have the Gospel of Thomas which has 144 sayings of Jesus, of which more than half can be found in the canon, we therefore have yet another source very close to what a Q document would look like that verifies much of the gospel records in regards to the teachings of Yeshua.

It's all about cross-examination, Mark, and how to reach the most plausible argument to explain the evidence. When you look at one piece of the puzzle, you can easily tear it apart. However, when you see the whole picture, then you cannot so easily tear it apart.


Please describe the extent and the basis for your personal emotional attachment (if any) to what you consider to be the "historically plausible" teachings of Yeshua.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 06:19 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(13-12-2012 05:43 PM)Free Wrote:  When we take away much of the narrative, and the supposed miracles in the gospel records, we are left with what historians believe would be the original historical source regarding the teachings of Yeshua.

Since we also have the Gospel of Thomas which has 144 sayings of Jesus, of which more than half can be found in the canon, we therefore have yet another source very close to what a Q document would look like that verifies much of the gospel records in regards to the teachings of Yeshua.

Take away "much of the narrative" and "the miracles", and what is left ? Nothing. Tongue

If Thomas and the synoptics had a a common book of sayings, (which is very likely), they are not independent anything.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 06:23 PM
Reliability of the Gospels
(13-12-2012 04:32 PM)Free Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 12:02 PM)vindicarblack Wrote:  That makes two of us then. My supernatural comments were a side note. I was calling into question your reasoning that Jesus existed because no one has proven he did not. You are cherry picking portions of my retort to duck your logical fallacy of circular reasoning and proof of the negative for your point.


Sorry, but the only thing I'm ducking here is your nonsense.

So let's see how good your logic actually is.

Please demonstrate where the circular reasoning actually is.

As far as "proof of the negative" is concerned, learn the following:


Quote:Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. A simple example of evidence of absence: A baker never fails to put finished pies on her windowsill, so if there is no pie on the windowsill, then no finished pies exist. This can be formulated as modus tollens in propositional logic: P implies Q, but Q is false, therefore P is false.

Evidence of this kind is not to be confused with mere ignorance, and the traditional axiom warns that[1] "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", although this is only the case if there is no reason to believe that such evidence would already have been found if it existed.[2] In this regard Irving Copi writes:

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Drinking Beverage

You are using the analogy wrong
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 06:59 PM (This post was last modified: 13-12-2012 07:02 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(13-12-2012 05:43 PM)Free Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 04:52 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So are you going to answer my question?
I did. But let me elaborate.

When we take away much of the narrative, and the supposed miracles in the gospel records, we are left with what historians believe would be the original historical source regarding the teachings of Yeshua.

You may already know that historians have already concluded that the synoptic Gospels all used the same source, with each gospel writer then expanding the narrative and adding in the miracles.

So I defend that part of the Gospel record which demonstrates the common source for the synoptics as being historically plausible.

Since we also have the Gospel of Thomas which has 144 sayings of Jesus, of which more than half can be found in the canon, we therefore have yet another source very close to what a Q document would look like that verifies much of the gospel records in regards to the teachings of Yeshua.

It's all about cross-examination, Mark, and how to reach the most plausible argument to explain the evidence. When you look at one piece of the puzzle, you can easily tear it apart. However, when you see the whole picture, then you cannot so easily tear it apart.





Re

"we are left with what historians believe would be the original historical source regarding the teachings of Yeshua."

True, but those historians are guessing.


Re

"So I defend that part of the Gospel record which demonstrates the common source for the synoptics as being historically plausible."

I agree it is historically plausible. What is your emotional attachment to the "historically plausible " part of the gospels?

Re

"Since we also have the Gospel of Thomas which has 144 sayings of Jesus, of which more than half can be found in the canon, we therefore have yet another source very close to what a Q document would look like that verifies much of the gospel records in regards to the teachings of Yeshua."

Once again...it's possible, but not proven to be what Yeshua taught.

Re

"It's all about cross-examination, Mark, and how to reach the most plausible argument to explain the evidence. When you look at one piece of the puzzle, you can easily tear it apart. However, when you see the whole picture, then you cannot so easily tear it apart."

Look ... I'm here to discuss facts and opinions, not to get patronising advice on how to examine history, which you persistently dole out, particularly when someone disagrees with you. Quit doing that will you? It will make our discussions much more pleasant.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 07:07 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(13-12-2012 06:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 05:43 PM)Free Wrote:  When we take away much of the narrative, and the supposed miracles in the gospel records, we are left with what historians believe would be the original historical source regarding the teachings of Yeshua.

Since we also have the Gospel of Thomas which has 144 sayings of Jesus, of which more than half can be found in the canon, we therefore have yet another source very close to what a Q document would look like that verifies much of the gospel records in regards to the teachings of Yeshua.


Take away "much of the narrative" and "the miracles", and what is left ? Nothing. Tongue

If Thomas and the synoptics had a a common book of sayings, (which is very likely), they are not independent anything.



I agree (as usual) with you.

Here is what I concluded about "Q"
Q was probably a real document, but it has no proven genuine connection with Yeshua. It sounds very much like a collection of generic Essenian truisms, which means they could have been compiled by anybody. Jewish intellectuals working for the Flavian government in Rome, for example, could have used such a collection to help create the gospels.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 07:22 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(13-12-2012 06:08 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 05:43 PM)Free Wrote:  I did. But let me elaborate.

When we take away much of the narrative, and the supposed miracles in the gospel records, we are left with what historians believe would be the original historical source regarding the teachings of Yeshua.

You may already know that historians have already concluded that the synoptic Gospels all used the same source, with each gospel writer then expanding the narrative and adding in the miracles.

So I defend that part of the Gospel record which demonstrates the common source for the synoptics as being historically plausible.

Since we also have the Gospel of Thomas which has 144 sayings of Jesus, of which more than half can be found in the canon, we therefore have yet another source very close to what a Q document would look like that verifies much of the gospel records in regards to the teachings of Yeshua.

It's all about cross-examination, Mark, and how to reach the most plausible argument to explain the evidence. When you look at one piece of the puzzle, you can easily tear it apart. However, when you see the whole picture, then you cannot so easily tear it apart.


Please describe the extent and the basis for your personal emotional attachment (if any) to what you consider to be the "historically plausible" teachings of Yeshua.
That was explained in the other thread, but here it is again.


Quote:Well, I can only blame the "historian" in me for trying to uncover the truth.

As an atheist, I find religion to be the worst thing to have ever happened to the human race. We all know how religion has caused more wars, deaths, poverty, and intellectual suppression than all other philosophies combined. From the wars between the Jews and the Romans, to the Crusades and the spread of Islam, these vicious and hateful religions have suppressed the advancement of science and the human race in general to such a degree that is is exceptionally shameful and harmful.

The true decency of our humanity has been victimized and dictated to by religious ideologies insomuch that the human animal is but a decrepit and insidious self-predatory monster.

Therefore, the "historian" in me wants to put a human face upon a supposed god in an effort to demonstrate the mere humanity of Jesus, as opposed to the religious beliefs held by Christianity and Islam about this fellow. By proving his mere humanity, the house of cards will fall.

So you see, there is indeed a method to my madness.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 07:24 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(13-12-2012 06:23 PM)vindicarblack Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 04:32 PM)Free Wrote:  Sorry, but the only thing I'm ducking here is your nonsense.

So let's see how good your logic actually is.

Please demonstrate where the circular reasoning actually is.

As far as "proof of the negative" is concerned, learn the following:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Drinking Beverage

You are using the analogy wrong


Demonstrate what is wrong with it, please.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 07:28 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(13-12-2012 06:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-12-2012 05:43 PM)Free Wrote:  When we take away much of the narrative, and the supposed miracles in the gospel records, we are left with what historians believe would be the original historical source regarding the teachings of Yeshua.

Since we also have the Gospel of Thomas which has 144 sayings of Jesus, of which more than half can be found in the canon, we therefore have yet another source very close to what a Q document would look like that verifies much of the gospel records in regards to the teachings of Yeshua.

Take away "much of the narrative" and "the miracles", and what is left ? Nothing. Tongue

If Thomas and the synoptics had a a common book of sayings, (which is very likely), they are not independent anything.
We still would have the teachings of Yeshua.

They would be independent of each other, but common with Q.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  On the Reliability of Human Intuition Vosur 7 120 22-05-2014 06:54 PM
Last Post: Chas
  The Real Origin of the Gospels and Christianity Mark Fulton 10 467 10-03-2013 04:53 AM
Last Post: Mark Fulton
  The Gospels of Thomas and Eve itsacow 10 671 04-04-2012 06:30 AM
Last Post: Bucky Ball
  Gnostic Gospels in Book form? Denicio 2 318 14-10-2011 09:40 AM
Last Post: Filox
  The gospels omega21 1 644 18-04-2010 11:01 AM
Last Post: panflutejedi
Forum Jump: