The Gospels—History or Myth?

[Sarkus]

It might as well be a Court of Law, Sarkus...It has all the precursers, signs and the atmosphere of a prosecution. If it walks like a DUCK, quacks like a DUCK and looks like a DUCK then let us dispense with the trivialities. As such the burdeon of evidence lies with the prosecutor to present and execute his case against the accused.

LOL!
Seriously - that is funny.
Just by saying it does NOT switch the burden of proof.
This is NOT a court of Law - and while your claims may appear to be "prosecuted" it is because they should be - UNLESS you can support them with evidence!

...then stand down and drop your charges.

Ha ha!
You will hopefully see that it is YOU who have made charges - that the Gospel is more than just the words on the page.
YOU have to support your charge.

Otherwise we might as well proceed with the superior standard of Law and evidience gathering.

Superior??
Displaying your blatant ignorance in such matters, Saquist.

The only other recourse is that it be implied that science has all the necessary instruments to make a conclusive decision between myth or history. Yet we know science is not a judicial system but a system of trial and error.

Logical fallacy derived from complete misunderstanding of science and the scientific method. No wonder you want to stick to Law - as they allow irrational conclusions as long as sufficient numbers agree.


But basically you really do not understand either science or rational debate, do you?
:shrug:
Science won't determine anything as "myth".
It will merely be able or unable to conclude whether or not there is a weight of evidence to support your "history".
Science does not work on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

So - despite your best claims - you have done little to support your case - and as such your claims are currently unfounded.

Please do better.

 

[Sarkus]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you've flat out denied that the Gospels identify themselves as history? I hope I've misunderstood you somehow as I look upon the first verse of Matthew.

Matthew Chapther 1 Verse 1
The book of history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham

Luke Chapter One Verse One
Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of facts that are given full credence among us.

I'm going to have to identify this as a clear testimony from the gospels, the "defendant" if you will, that it is indeed... historical and factual.

Ohdearme!
You are serious in this, aren't you, that you feel a claim of historicity is sufficient to warrant it being called such??

Mwahahahaha!!!
:bravo:

Just picking a book off my shelf: ever heard of "The History of Mr. Polly" by H.G.Wells?

Clearly, by your understanding, a definitive account of the actual events of an actual person?

No?

 

[Saquist]

LOL!
Seriously - that is funny.
Just by saying it does NOT switch the burden of proof.
This is NOT a court of Law - and while your claims may appear to be "prosecuted" it is because they should be - UNLESS you can support them with evidence!



Ha ha!
You will hopefully see that it is YOU who have made charges - that the Gospel is more than just the words on the page.
YOU have to support your charge.

Superior??
Displaying your blatant ignorance in such matters, Saquist.

Logical fallacy derived from complete misunderstanding of science and the scientific method. No wonder you want to stick to Law - as they allow irrational conclusions as long as sufficient numbers agree.


But basically you really do not understand either science or rational debate, do you?
:shrug:
Science won't determine anything as "myth".
It will merely be able or unable to conclude whether or not there is a weight of evidence to support your "history".
Science does not work on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

So - despite your best claims - you have done little to support your case - and as such your claims are currently unfounded.

Please do better.

You say this is not a court of Law, Similiarly, SciForums is not a true Scientific Forum. It' a message board system At the very least you recognize that the court system is a superior judge. Though you seem offended at my use of judical standards.

For example: IAP STANDARDS

Article 4 is a specific provision affecting the conduct of proceedings, prosecutors. In all circumstances the Article casts upon prosecutors the obligation to act objectively, impartially and professionally
Even when taking your self seriously you've managed to laugh at the facts which would seem to be a breach of decorum thus making evident the true informality of Sci Forums. I'm sure it was humorous to you.

Law is defined as a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society. In comparison these forums lack much of the propper decorum of most Judical systems. I guess what I'm saying is. Don't take your self too seriously on the issue of burden of proof (a legal term) when you're laughing off evidence at the same time. If you were really so dedicated to the scientific aspect of investigation of these issues then you really wouldn't object to a more strict adherence. In fact you'd welcome it openly.

Without the rule of law, as history has taught us time and time again, the climate is created for various kinds of extreme unpleasantness to befall us – various forms of oppression or anarchy may be allowed to prevail with unfortunate consequences for us all. The threat exists to various degrees, but to some degree in all societies.

Respecting these threats as concerns the search for truth and the fair deliberations is of paramount importance in my perspective. Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. It has already been established that the Scientific Method applies to science. There are many disciplines and studies but they all are related to a search for information and more specificly in some cases, processes which define our enviroment. So there is no threat from applying judical standards to science. In fact I'm sure it would clean up the scientific community from the blacklisting, isolating, arrogance, and posturing that tends to occur even in true scientific forums. Whilie science has always been higher goal the atmostphere of the society has more to do with favortism and disdain, like a political forum in which opponents fling insults back and forth.

Ah the human equation. It will always ce more likely to introduce error rather than truth.

 

[Saquist]

Ohdearme!
You are serious in this, aren't you, that you feel a claim of historicity is sufficient to warrant it being called such??

Mwahahahaha!!!
:bravo:

Just picking a book off my shelf: ever heard of "The History of Mr. Polly" by H.G.Wells?

Clearly, by your understanding, a definitive account of the actual events of an actual person?

No?

First and of foremost importance is the Defendant's plea. In this case your associate uttered a falsehood. Yet it's clear that the Gospels are presenting themselves as history. That's step number two.

Step number one is establishing a charge. Which he stated and you continue assert is that it is myth not history. The reason why this is step number one in the process is because whether it be a court of law or a "scientific" forum ,aka. court of the people the facts exist in a vaccuum of discovery. We seek to classify them. Thus seeing that step 2 establishes the work's own position, step 3 proceeds with prosecution if there is a conflict between step one and step two. Even then there must be a considerable weight of evidence to be allowed to conduct a trial.

Since my position does not conflict with the statements of the text within it's vaccuum of discovery and you have indeed recognized the prosecutional similarities and affirm that there should be a prosecution. I, aswell as a court system would see it as your task to produce evidence that contradicts the plea of history.

Article 4.2 (d) of the IAP requires us to know when we have a viable case.

The idea here is prevent unnecessary prosecutions or prosecutions for the sake of prosecution. It serves as a sift to prevent supurflous cases from reaching the consideration of trial. At which point the facts for consideration remain in the condition in which it was discovered...a self substaniated delcaration of history.

Hope that helps you to understand.

 

[Sarkus]

You say this is not a court of Law, Similiarly, SciForums is not a true Scientific Forum. It' a message board system

It is indeed a message board system that tries, wherever possible, to use the scientific method to reach its conclusions - which is why it is considered a "science" forum.

If this was a legal forum, perhaps you could put "history or myth" on trial.
But it it isn't.
Please use science to reach your conclusions on this board - or are you totally incapable? Or just concerned that you can't support your case?

At the very least you recognize that the court system is a superior judge.

No - I do not.
The court system makes irrational decisions by consensus, where as long as you convince 12 people or supposedly random intellect, and convince them merely "beyond reasonable doubt" - you'll win.
Further it discounts evidence if not collected in accordance with specific laws protecting human rights etc.
"Superior"?

You're joking, right?

The court system is still battling with the idea that ID should be taught alongside Evolution... and you honestly reckon it is superior???

:shrug:

Though you seem offended at my use of judical standards.

There's no offence other than in you not accepting the Scientific Method as the most suitable and diligent form of intellectual enquiry into matters, especially in a Sci-forum.


Even when taking your self seriously you've managed to laugh at the facts which would seem to be a breach of decorum thus making evident the true informality of Sci Forums. I'm sure it was humorous to you.

I guess what I'm saying is. Don't take your self too seriously on the issue of burden of proof (a legal term) when you're laughing off evidence at the same time.

But BURDEN OF PROOF is the most essential element for someone like you to accept.
If it wasn't for where the BURDEN OF PROOF lies we would all be believing in godknowswhat about anything at all - merely because we couldn't discount it.

A claim requires support.
You claim the Bible is more than myth - so YOU SUPPORT IT.

If you were really so dedicated to the scientific aspect of investigation of these issues then you really wouldn't object to a more strict adherence. In fact you'd welcome it openly.

Once and for all - the legal system is flawed. Highly flawed.
It is NOT SUPERIOR to the Scientific Method.
I honestly can not see how an intelligent person can truly feel that it is.
Perhaps it is because the legal system is the only place where such claims as yours can be aired with anything other than amusement.

Without the rule of law, as history has taught us time and time again, the climate is created for various kinds of extreme unpleasantness to befall us – various forms of oppression or anarchy may be allowed to prevail with unfortunate consequences for us all. The threat exists to various degrees, but to some degree in all societies.

Logical fallacy (you do know what that term means, don't you?)
You are arguing from fear of the consequence to support the case for your supposedly superior enquiry system.

Pathetic, Saquist.
Truly pathetic.

 

[Sarkus]

First and of foremost importance is the Defendant's plea.

Continue to use your legal system and you will continue to be laughed at, Saquist.
It grows tired.
It is irrelevant to scientific enquiry.
It is NOT superior to the scientific method.

Please support your case or shut up.
It really is as simple as that.

In this case your associate uttered a falsehood. Yet it's clear that the Gospels are presenting themselves as history. That's step number two.

According to your legal system, I can now make a claim that the Bibles are nothing but MYTH - and you, seemingly unable to counter these claims, must accept this as truth? You're in a pickle, Saquist, of your own making.


And please explain to me how "The History of Mr. Polly" is not akin to the Bible in purporting to be historical?
I have offered just one example of a book within reach of me, not to mention the vast number of other such books, that claim to be historical, yet clearly aren't.
Please therefore explain why the Bible should be taken as historical, merely because it says so, yet these other books shouldn't?

Give up Saquist...
Either support your case - or end this debacle now.

 

[iceaura]

There is no evasion here Icearua, If you're not attempting to verify myth through a comparison of events and details from other myths and legends then I have no contention.

You will note that I do not use the word "verify". That is a clue. I note resemblances between the accounts of the Bible and ordinary legend or myth. Those resemblance are facts of the situation. The interpretation of such facts involves argument, discussion, etc. Simply abeling the resemblances "perceptions" is not an argument.

I understand what you're to saying. I do not understand why you're drawing comparisons from other myths and legends.

? Then you don't understand what I am saying.

I've jumped to the assumption that you are attempting to verify a status of myth based on resemblence.

Clarify your agenda.

I am attempting to corner you into actually dealing with the arguments and evidence presented to you, instead of simply finding labels for them that you apparently think make them go away.

I am looking for factual ground as concerns the charge of myth and legend applied to the gospels. However you or anyone else percieves the events is a matter of peception of the incredible.

One fact is that they resemble accounts that have been established (and agreed by you) to be myth and legend.

That is the essence of increduility which is a state of belief.

It is a state of judgment and evaluation. It is a defended and argued state. Now your state of credulity has a chance to be defended and argued.

Iasion and Sarkus have present "extraordinary" events or inother words "incredible events" as some sort of proof of myth.

Not "proof" - evidence and argument. Now if you disagree it is your turn to deal with the evidence and argument.

Yet you deny this is your assertion.

I deny no quotes.

Even more so you say no one has made this assertion.

No I don't.

 

[Myles]

So...I'm attempting to place this statement of yours in it's propper place. I will summarize by restating that you have said "No-where does any Gospel say they are historical accounts. That's-just-just-what-faithful-believers-faithfully believe."

Correct me if I'm wrong but you've flat out denied that the Gospels identify themselves as history? I hope I've misunderstood you somehow as I look upon the first verse of Matthew.

Matthew Chapther 1 Verse 1
The book of history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham
Luke Chapter One Verse One
Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of facts that are given full credence among us.

I'm going to have to identify this as a clear testimony from the gospels, the "defendant" if you will, that it is indeed... historical and factual. I am beyond words, Iasion. Clearly you've misrepresented yourself right from the start. You've discredited yourself grossly to say the least. Does not these two scriptures alone of the gospel identify themselves as HISTORICAL AND FACTUAL? How many more false statements will I find you've made throughout your post on this thread? You have instantly taught me not to trust you at all. I must ascribe you as duplicitous and hostile to the very nature of the argument. I may be getting back to Icearua MUCH MUCH sooner than I thought! Will I find that you've suppose-ed every assertion you've made? Have you set eyes on Christian Greek Scriptures we're discussing, ever?!

I require an immediate explantion.
I have copied and stored your post for future refrence in the event you make attempt to edit out your claims.

Can you name the source of Matthew 1.1 which refers to history both in the Greek NT and the English translation.I assume you can name both, as you asked Sarkus whether he had ever set eyes on the Christian Greek scriptures, suggesting that you have.

I checked the Greek NT and there is no reference to history. I have checked the King James version and found no reference to history. I believe you are the one who cannot be trusted. An honest person would have said something to the effect that they were quoting Mark from source X , although it is not to be found in all versions of the Bible . You deliberately gave the impression that your version was the universally accepted one. So much for your "righteous" indignation, copying and storing S's response to prevent cheating by later editing. You, sir, are a FRAUD


Finally, if you name your sources, would you please say why they are more reliable than those I have cited. It would also be helpful if you could tell me the Greek word for history because the word I have in mind may be different from yours. Hint: there's the possibility of ambiguity

 

[Saquist]

The Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

We are in agreement then. It is a message board system. The body of individuals do not necessarily use the scientific method nor are they necessarily part of the scientific community. As it stands there is no standards for practicing the execution the scientific method on these forums nor can the information in question be defined as "measureable", nor can the scientific method establish true validity from a text that has few contemporaries to which there is no contradiction with. Esentially you seek to step out of line of even the standard of the scientific method. The Christian Greek Scriptures are not a hypothesis or theory. There is no process to analyze. You yourself recognize your own statements as a "claims "or "assertions". You continue to use terms such as "burdeon of proof" and "burden of evidence". These are terms of a legal stature. Yet while they translate to a scientific apparoach as well science can not determine between lies and honesty with out emperical data in which to meausre.

I agree the conclusions of a legal process can result in irrational decisions that have no bearing on the actuall validity, such as the propper submital of documentation to satisfy the charges and such. But it does not bar the further pusuit of the charges nor does it bar appeal. While the scientific method does not do so either the society in which you opperate that method denies charges and appeals and seeks conviction on the basis of increduility. It's a false standard.

It has nothing to do with the Scientific Method in the long run. This is the problem of the society. In relation to liken the Scientific Method to the entire judical system is wrong. It only has a true bearing on standards such as the IAP that is linked to viable case presentation/theory and categorizing the results. Then prosecuting the results versus the existing knowledge.

But as I pointed out with one there is a standard for appeals, setting charges and seeking conviction and with the other there is not. Individuals are free to prosecute charges on whatever they see fit. Charges are also denied on the same arbitrary whims of the society. Is this not so or are there standards to which I'm ignornant of?

The debate between the issue of ID and evolution is of great importances. It deals strictly with the validity of the two theories. IT established a conviction in at least one case that ID is a true scientific theory. I must agree with it's conviction.

It called down a guility verdict because:
1)the defense was pooooorly executed. They did not fully explore the comeptitions validity.
2) The defense was found guilty of non scientific motives
3) The defense was found guility of conspiracy

The Judical process found that information as opposed to the Scientific Method which could not and neither could the scientific community. SO YES THAT'S SUPERIOR.

If it wasn't for where the BURDEN OF PROOF lies we would all be believing in godknowswhat about anything at all - merely because we couldn't discount it.

If you want to go for a sweeping generalization of what you consider lies then yes you're write. But we're talking about history, the study of which is not addressable by the Scientific Method, but the Historical Method.

There's no offence other than in you not accepting the Scientific Method as the most suitable and diligent form of intellectual enquiry into matters, especially in a Sci-forum.

You laugh...but you're not utilizing the correct method. I've been attempting to explain that to your for sometime now. It is not the most suitable and diligent form of intellectual enquiry into historical matters.

My "claim" does have the support of the documents. Assertion. That is the first and most important consideration, it's own position either as myth or history. The book of Matthew establishes it'self as history and the parrallel account of Luke concurs as well as two other of the Gospels.

The ball is in your court. You can chose not discredit or not to discredit the accounts but that does not establish that the accounts are lying as to their true nature.

Continue to use your legal system and you will continue to be laughed at, Saquist.
It grows tired.
It is irrelevant to scientific enquiry.
It is NOT superior to the scientific method.

Please support your case or shut up.
It really is as simple as that.

Don't grow tired Sarkus, I'm testing your resolve to the Scientific Method. And you haven't even used it yet. Further I'm testing whether you know what metod to use or which is relevant. Since you're nothing using the propper method I can firmly assert that you do not know the relevant difference between science and history. So...my use of the judicial standards led me to the conclusion that your claims concerning the use of the scientific method are wrong.

It is that which the judical standards are used for. The burning away of the irrelevancies to reveal the facts....

According to your legal system, I can now make a claim that the Bibles are nothing but MYTH - and you, seemingly unable to counter these claims, must accept this as truth? You're in a pickle, Saquist, of your own making.

That's not true I can counter them. It's not a piclke for anyone but the opposition. The difference is...I can find factual agreement with historical aspects and you can not find historical counters concerning validity. In fact history has already established that the Biblical scriptures find agreement more often with the surrounding society in terms or victories, war, and rulers.

See I've gone beyond my turn...you haven't supported your claim with any emprical data. Even worse you've used a chart to track "extrodinary" events because you can't prove them wrong with emprical data. That's the problem with how you've been using the Scientific Method.

And please explain to me how "The History of Mr. Polly" is not akin to the Bible in purporting to be historical?
I have offered just one example of a book within reach of me, not to mention the vast number of other such books, that claim to be historical,

If you really want me to do this I'll have to read to have a propper frame of mind and perspective on the book. IF you indeed wish for my analysis and not just a drop of the hat approach as you employ then I will require the book and a mininmum of 5 hours of reading time.

You will note that I do not use the word "verify". That is a clue. I note resemblances between the accounts of the Bible and ordinary legend or myth. Those resemblance are facts of the situation. The interpretation of such facts involves argument, discussion, etc. Simply abeling the resemblances "perceptions" is not an argument ? Then you don't understand what I am saying. I am attempting to corner you into actually dealing with the arguments and evidence presented to you, instead of simply finding labels for them that you apparently think make them go away.

One fact is that they resemble accounts that have been established (and agreed by you) to be myth and legend. It is a state of judgment and evaluation. It is a defended and argued state. Now your state of credulity has a chance to be defended and argued. Not "proof" - evidence and argument. Now if you disagree it is your turn to deal with the evidence and argument.

I deny no quotes. No I don't.

All I seek is verification Iceaura. Your objective thus is not the same as mine.
The Question is to what end is your agenda seeking? As I stipulated I assume you are attempting to verify myth vs history by means of these arguements and circumstantial evidence that have been presented. Arguments which are based off perception, factual or not there is no relation except the similarities therefore the conclusion you apparently wish to draw is not causal. Which is why I've labled them as circumstantial and perceptional and ultimately irrelevant.

The similarities we see (which I don't deny are extraordinary and never have) do not deflect the points of history in which the text touches on. There is no counter to base the claim of myth which can be reasonably pursued through increduility.

 

[Iasion]

I've solidly answered to the accusations above. Whatever error you're seeing is perceptual. If this is not true then I would suggest appreciating my answers as I have given them and not interpreting them.

Wrong.
you have repeatedly ignored the FACT that Revolver's list is NOT all 1st century. It is clear you will never address that fact.

This has not been factually detailed. I will not appologize for not taking your word for it.

I don't WANT you to take my word for it. I want you to go CHECK the facts. But you never to do that.

Please cite what Suetonus and the Talmud say, and please indicate WHY you think they vindicate the Bible.

You gave no such thing. I saw no explicity, only the implicit. As far as checking...yes..I will.

You didn't check before you posted, you didn't check during our conversation here...

WHEN will you check the facts?

Not entirely. I'm am loosly versed in his writings of Jesus...I can not claim to be an authority nor can I claim that I soon will be.

Then you should check your facts before posting.

I have read much of what Josephus has to say. I am uncertain as to the actual amount. Since I have openly revealed in previous post my of amatuer status it would seem it is not worthy of repeating unless you didn't see it the first time.

Why can'y you address the issue, instead of talking about yourself?

What does Josephus say?
Why do you think it's genuine?

I appreciate your perspective Iasion, yet I have ignored nothing. I have merely listened and observed. I'm in not position to contend with you on these subjects which you have advantage over me.

You have ignored all the subjects where I showed you are wrong. Why can't you just admit you were wrong? That's how we learn and advance.

At this point, you have yet to acknowledge ONE SINGLE point where I showed you wrong. Why?

Why can't you say "whoops, I was wrong about these writers being 1st century". Instead of these vague statements that I have "advantage" over you.

The only "advantage" I have is that I check my facts first - YOU can do that too, then I won't have the advantage.

I am and as I did for Revolvr aswell. But you haven't backed them up.

Backed what up?
Those writers are NOT 1st century. You can check that in any history book. But you still have NOT checked have you, Saquist? You still have NOT looked up Pliny, Suetonius etc.

It rather seems that you will NEVER look them up, perhaps because that would mean admitting you were wrong, which you seem unable to ever do.

Here, for example is a link about Suetonius :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius

Will you read up on Suetonius?
Yes or No?

Did Suetonius write about Jesus in 1st century?
Yes or No?

I have almost no common refrence for anyone other than Tacticus and Josephus. Don't act so surprised as though you'ver revealed an incredible new discovery. This is nothing new. Patting yourself on the back for what I've already revealed about my own cache of knowledge is stupid.

Hmm, so you have desire or intention to ever increase that cache of knowledge?

You don't want to learn the facts of this subject?

You are happy arguing about a subject you hardly know anything about?

Moving on....

I see your entire post contains nothing of substance, just you trying to explain away your lack of knowledge.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Hi all,

Matthew Chapther 1 Verse 1
The book of history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham

Well, well.
You quote the word "history" from the beginning of Matthew.

My bibles use the word(s)
"genealogy" or
"descent" or
"list of the ancestors".

The Greek word is "geneseos" whose root meaning is "origin".

It does not mean history, it is not translated as "history" in any version I can have checked.

So,
here we see Saquist has tampered with the evidence.

Saquist has added the word "history" to the Gospel, in any attempt to prove they are history.

I am gob-smacked.

Saquist - how would the judge respond if you tampered with exhibit A, and then lied about what it showed ?

Is that the sort of lawyer you are training to be?
One who corrupts the evidence to make a false case?


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Luke Chapter One Verse One
Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of facts that are given full credence among us.

So,
I see you also give a false translation of Luke.

The original does NOT say "facts".

It says "the fullfilled among us" - no noun, no "facts".

The original does not say "given full credence among us".

It says "fulfilled among us".

Once again, you have TAMPERED with the evidence and tried to present false information to the court.

Luke says :
"since many others have written narratives of the things fullfilled amongst us".

Narratives are stories - not history, not facts.

Many before Luke wrote stories of what was fulfilled amongst them. Luke then read those stories and wrote his OWN version.

That's no more history than fans writing a new book about Luke Skywalker and saying it's the "REAL STORY".

Saquist -
you have been caught tampering with the evidence, and deliberately attempting to mislead the court.

You are therefore in contempt of court, and ejected from the bar.

Goodbye.


Iasion

 

[Saquist]

Wrong.
you have repeatedly ignored the FACT that Revolver's list is NOT all 1st century. It is clear you will never address that fact.

It's only clear that I have not confirmed this.
I have not position on this issue. The ignoring is more on your part than myself. You're ignoring that I have no stance. You're requiring me to take a position without the necessary information and that would be dishonest.

I don't WANT you to take my word for it. I want you to go CHECK the facts. But you never to do that.

Please cite what Suetonus and the Talmud say, and please indicate WHY you think they vindicate the Bible.

If you expect it happen over night then I expect to disapoint you. Study does happen instantly nor could an internet examnination reveal all the necessary data. You'll just have to wait.

You didn't check before you posted, you didn't check during our conversation here...

WHEN will you check the facts?

On my own time and in the time I see fit to come to a conclusion.
I'm not asking you wait.

Then you should check your facts before posting.

I didn't post those facts. Revolvr did. Speaking of which you did post an incorrect statement so perhaps this is a case of physican heal thy self.

Why can'y you address the issue, instead of talking about yourself?

Ah but I have.

What does Josephus say?

In his work , Aggainst Apiron, he shows that the Jews never included the Apocriyphal books as part of the inspired Scriptures. He testifies to the accuracy and internal harmony of the scriptures, saying "We have not an innumerable mulititude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradictiong one another" Further, he says, " But only twenty-two books which contain the records of all the past times: which are justly beleived to be divine."

Twenty-two books are the equivialent of our modern division of the scritures into 39 books. Josephus on several counts offers details into scriptural events and people that was not recorded and which may have been a matter of oral tradition or understood in oral tradition.

Why do you think it's genuine?

The most outsanding reason that comes to mind is that without apparent regard to jesus prophecy he records that "Cestius... recalled his soliders from the place...he retired from the city, without any reason in the world."

"I consider the Prophecy relative to the destruction of the Jewish nation, if there were nothing else to support Christianity, as absolutely irresistible." --Mr. Erskine's Speech, at the Trial of Williams, for publishing Paine's Age of Reason

I concur with him.

You have ignored all the subjects where I showed you are wrong. Why can't you just admit you were wrong? That's how we learn and advance.

At this point, you have yet to acknowledge ONE SINGLE point where I showed you wrong. Why?

Your only point has been "You're wrong"
And the point you reveal are not my points but someone elses. SO clearly thre is something wrong with your target selection...less you'd like to identify where I said something false.

Why can't you say "whoops, I was wrong about these writers being 1st century". Instead of these vague statements that I have "advantage" over you.

I never said they were 1 century. Do you think that I'm Revolvr or something. I don't even have that knowledge of these individuals.

Those writers are NOT 1st century. You can check that in any history book. But you still have NOT checked have you, Saquist? You still have NOT looked up Pliny, Suetonius etc.

Will do.

It rather seems that you will NEVER look them up, perhaps because that would mean admitting you were wrong, which you seem unable to ever do.

You can't predict the future.

Here, for example is a link about Suetonius :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius

Thanks (for the first time) that's actually helpful. I appreciate it.

Hmm, so you have desire or intention to ever increase that cache of knowledge?

Of course. It's my weakness as too the position of where the scriptures sit in terms of history. I know many positive points but I don't know the contentions against them.

You are happy arguing about a subject you hardly know anything about?

From your persepective I guess that true. The actuallity is that I don't mind arguing on what I know. I always stick to what I know.

Moving on....

hopefully.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

A quick point about this issue of whether the Gospels "present themselves as history".

This statement can be equivocated....

Saquist has taken it to mean :
"do the Gospels WRITERS make claims to historicity"

Whereas I took it to mean :
"do the GOSPELS evaluate as history"


Now, I will agree that there are a few statements in the NT which can be interpreted as CLAIMS of historicity (although not the passages Saquist so blatantly tampered with.)

But that means little - as Sarkus has pointed out, a CLAIM to truth, or historicity is very common in fiction and myth.

Tolkein CLAIMED the Lord of The Rings was true and merely translated from the Red Book of Westmarch. H.G. Wells did a similar thing, as Sarkus noted. Many myths and fables insist "this is the TRUE story".

So what ?
No-one thinks LOTRO is really true.


Rather,
the real issue, as Myles also pointed out, is whether the BOOK shows signs of being true history, not whether the author claims "this is the TRUE version"

A book would be considered fairly true history, if :
* it's provenance was fairly well known
* it had plausible events
* it could be confirmed with other sources.


The Gospels FAIL SPECTACTULARLY all all 3 accounts.

Moreover, we can see exactly where the Gospel stories have been taken : the Tanakh. Almost every episode in the the first Gospel, G.Mark, can be traced back to the OT. Both Paul and G.Mark say this about Jesus over and over : "as written in the scriptures". The Jesus of Mark is clearly crafted from the pages of the Tanakh.


Which is why they are not considered history, but merely religious books - except by those who BELIEVE. Just like those who BELIEVE in the Koran are convinced of their own rightness. etc.


Iasion

 

[Saquist]

Greetings,



So,
I see you also give a false translation of Luke.

The original does NOT say "facts".

It says "the fullfilled among us" - no noun, no "facts".

The original does not say "given full credence among us".

It says "fulfilled among us".

Once again, you have TAMPERED with the evidence and tried to present false information to the court.

Luke says :
"since many others have written narratives of the things fullfilled amongst us".

Narratives are stories - not history, not facts.

Many before Luke wrote stories of what was fulfilled amongst them. Luke then read those stories and wrote his OWN version.

That's no more history than fans writing a new book about Luke Skywalker and saying it's the "REAL STORY".

Saquist -
you have been caught tampering with the evidence, and deliberately attempting to mislead the court.

You are therefore in contempt of court, and ejected from the bar.

Goodbye.


Iasion

You're being extreme.
We're speaking of interpretation and the issue of grammar.

The King James says. "The Book of the "generations" of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

The interlinear translation of this greek word (not phrase) is "origins" at Matthew.

Concerning the interlinear translation of Luke the word "facts" is used.

The King James says..."Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of "those things which are mostly surely believed among us."

Facts is an approprate word. "for things surely believed among us." and it conveys simply what is understood in the greek.

Translating is a difficult task but I'm not unjustified in the use of these words.

The New International Version: Luke 1:1
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us,

The reference note above fulfilled says...Or been surely believed

It's still presenting it'self as truth....ergo facts is an appropriate description here no matter what version you're looking at.

Matt 1:1 International Version
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

The Amplified Bible.
1THE BOOK of the ancestry (genealogy) of Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed), the son (descendant) of David, the son (descendant) of Abraham

The New Century Bible
1 This is the family history of Jesus Christ. He came from the family of David, and David came from the family of Abraham.

Youngs Literal Translation
1A roll of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
1 The (A) historical record (B) [a] of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, (C) the Son of Abraham: (D)

You really don't have a leg to stand on here. You're quibiling over synonyms. The point that comes across is that in order to establish Jesus as real the authors deamed it necessary to found Jesus' birth right in history and genealogy. Obviously this is important as to prophesy concerning the 70 weeks of years which would establish the appearence of the messiah and his right to the thrown of David as King through blood lines...

How many times I stated that the Gospel stands on the support of the Hebrew Scriptures for it's confirmation to be taken as history I don't know... but I certainly did not leave it in doubt. And it certainly seems you've ignored this and more, Iason. You should try to keep to the facts rather than the task of invention or interpretation.

I've done my home work in translation in spades. Iason. You've nothing here. You're still wrong with your original assertion that the gospel does not present itself as history. No one else said that but you. No one else was quite so bold to speak on matters they didn't know about....Not even Myles.

 

[Saquist]

Greetings all,

A quick point about this issue of whether the Gospels "present themselves as history".

This statement can be equivocated....

Saquist has taken it to mean :
"do the Gospels WRITERS make claims to historicity"

Whereas I took it to mean :
"do the GOSPELS evaluate as history"


Now, I will agree that there are a few statements in the NT which can be interpreted as CLAIMS of historicity (although not the passages Saquist so blatantly tampered with.)

But that means little - as Sarkus has pointed out, a CLAIM to truth, or historicity is very common in fiction and myth.

Tolkein CLAIMED the Lord of The Rings was true and merely translated from the Red Book of Westmarch. H.G. Wells did a similar thing, as Sarkus noted. Many myths and fables insist "this is the TRUE story".

So what ?
No-one thinks LOTRO is really true.


Rather,
the real issue, as Myles also pointed out, is whether the BOOK shows signs of being true history, not whether the author claims "this is the TRUE version"

A book would be considered fairly true history, if :
* it's provenance was fairly well known
* it had plausible events
* it could be confirmed with other sources.


The Gospels FAIL SPECTACTULARLY all all 3 accounts.

Moreover, we can see exactly where the Gospel stories have been taken : the Tanakh. Almost every episode in the the first Gospel, G.Mark, can be traced back to the OT. Both Paul and G.Mark say this about Jesus over and over : "as written in the scriptures". The Jesus of Mark is clearly crafted from the pages of the Tanakh.


Which is why they are not considered history, but merely religious books - except by those who BELIEVE. Just like those who BELIEVE in the Koran are convinced of their own rightness. etc.


Iasion

That is what is called "backpedaling" you knew what I meant but your badgering approach lacked the finess of specifices. That is why I suggested you calm down and make yourself clear.
According to the Wiki.


Garraghan divides criticism into six inquiries (A Guide to Historical Method, 168):

When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

We are told that the first four are higher criticism
The last two are called lower criticism so...I'm the only one here that has placed the gospel interms of credibitly in it's appropirate loaction of lower criticism. and still incredulity is no on the list guys...

You're going off of Myles using some chopped up version of how he thinks the Scientific Method applies. He too was using an impropper method.

 

[iceaura]

The Question is to what end is your agenda seeking?

Yet another question, and no attempt to deal with the old ones.

It's been an exercise in attempting to corner a representative Biblical literalist, so that they actually have to deal with an argument and the evidence of an assertion.

Failure, in other words. Oh well.

 

[Saquist]

According to the Wiki.
(not the best source but easily availabe)
This is not the first time this has been found in terms of authenticity.

The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars often draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to many religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] However, a very small minority[2][3] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[4]

 

[Saquist]

Yet another question, and no attempt to deal with the old ones.

It's been an exercise in attempting to corner a representative Biblical literalist, so that they actually have to deal with an argument and the evidence of an assertion.

Failure, in other words. Oh well.

If you believe so.
I stake my claim on the facts you stake yours on similarities between unrelated text. I think that's pretty clear Iceaura. The Failure here maybe that you've yet to make any clear contradiction. You're speaking philosophy, a language of variety and opinions I speak in literal terms not just in Biblical terms but in ALL terms. The allegation of "Biblical Literalist" Is also a matter of your perception. Your perception being that my foundation is on the Bible first.

You are wrong.
My Foundation is dedicated to the propper approach and not skepticism. That is undoubtably what you're employing as your reasoning fulcrum.

The whole tiime I've told you I don't accept skepticism and incredulity. You've wasted your post explaining the similarities between to text that have absolutely no relation to each other other than appearces. Imagine a philosopher and a Realist attempt to hold a conversation. The Realist sees in terms of Black and White the Philosopher sees every color of the spectrum. These are two people that can not see eye to eye.

You haven't done a good job of explaining your purpose or your position.
Cornering has no utter purpose in this arguement but entrapment on issues of perception.

 

[Myles]

According to the Wiki.
(not the best source but easily availabe)
This is not the first time this has been found in terms of authenticity.

The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars often draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to many religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] However, a very small minority[2][3] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[4]

That is not what you put forward in response to Sarkus. You misquoted Matthew and Luke and would have had us believe that you were familiar with the Greek NT. So provide your sources in English and Greek or admit you were cheating. I asked you to tell me the Greek word for history. On reflection, there is no need. Just direct me to your source and I shall read it for myself.

Otherwise accept that you are on here masquerading as a Biblical scholar on some level. In other words, you are a Fraud.