How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?

[Zelduck]

This is really a question for Christians, but since it doesn't assume the validity of the Bible, I think it belongs here rather than in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma section.

There have been multiple canons of Scripture. Books have been accepted and rejected for various reasons throughout Christian history. Books have lied about their authorship. Passages have been added and removed. Books were written in different times and different places by different authors and for different reasons.

So how can I have confidence in any particular verse, chapter, or book, that what I am reading is the inspired work of the Holy Spirit, and not the work of a man, no matter how pious?

What method ought I use to reliably determine what is and is not the Word of God? Has someone already done this for me, and if so, how can I tell if they didn't make a mistake?

[Korah]

An excellent response, Student, even going back to my sources. If only you could accept that "evidence" is not limited to incontrovertible "fact". That there is a Passion Narrative, Signs Source, or whatever no one presents as a hard fact, just as highly likely and subject to disproof. By your standards, why do we bother trying to learn anything about the meaning of life, etc.?

Korah, in a previous post you graciously acknowledged that I had read all of the posts that constitute your proposition. However, less charitably, you falsely attributed my rejection of your claims to my adherence to academic consensus. This is entirely untrue.

Best as I can remember I attributed your rejection to a firm anti-supernaturalist bias, whether I said so or not.

Evidently selective memory loss. You may have thought it, but you said no such thing.

That's what I said, I had in my mind one thing, but I more charitably said something else. Accepting academic scholarship would be accepted as a good thing, I would think, whereas having a nihilistic blind-spot would not.

Let me to refresh your memory regarding what you actually posted. From your post #145 http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 347#673347

Student was willing to accept Consensus in refutation of me,

Academic consensus and anti-supernaturalist bias had nothing to do with my rejection of your proposition. It was the lack of grist for the mill, i.e. a lack of evidence.

I rejected your proposition simply because your posts, although numerous and lengthy, perhaps excessively so, fail to include any evidence in support of your claims. All I discovered was argument by assertion.
To demonstrate my point, let’s dissect part of the post in which you reveal your first "eye-witness�, John-Mark: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 419#669419

Tracing sources of the gospels would seem to start with the earliest written documents, but the logic starts better with the foundation upon which the other sources and additions were built. This source is the Passion Narrative, the largest part of the material common to both John and the Synoptics.

Assertion 1: “the logic starts better with …… the Passion Narrative�.
In the absence of any evidence to support this claim it stands as no more than an expression of your opinion. It may suit your chosen hypothesis but it is not a proven statement of fact, and to suggest that it is, is pure arrogance.
The hypothesis of a Passion Narrative pre-dating the gospels is simply conjecture. It may be learned conjecture but in the final analysis that is all that it is, conjecture, not a proven fact.
If the existence of a Passion Narrative is unproven, then a logic predicated upon the premise of the certainty of its pre-existence is conjecture underpinned by speculation i.e. wishful thinking.

That the Passion Narrative was the foundation stone is commonly held.

Here we see that you are willing to dismiss standard academic scholarship as just "conjecture". This certainly undermines your slurs on my presentation as just conjectures. While not hard fact and not presented as such, what I have said is what it is whether you label it as "evidence" or high-level conjecture.

So what. This is simply an example of the logical fallacy of an appeal to the majority. Just because something is “commonly held� does not make it fact. At one time it was “commonly held� that the world was flat, something that can now be demonstrated to be factually inaccurate.

Peter Kirby is not a Christian, but at his EarlyChristianWritings.com website he dates it to 30 to 60 AD.

To cite Kirby’s website in such a manner, implying that the entry somehow endorses the hypothesis, is disingenuous to say the least. Kirby attempts an even handed approach and includes comments both for and against the hypothesis. For example, the opening lines from the article:

The existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been challenged. The assumption of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been undermined by studies that aim to show that the final three chapters of Mark contain themes developed throughout the Gospel.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html
Evidently the existence of the Passion Narrative is not an established fact. It is conjecture, a matter of opinion, but not established fact. I wonder how Peter Kirby might react to discover his material is being abused by you in such a manner.

I never said Kirby endorses my Thesis of seven written gospel eyewitnesses, even though he did the courtesy of editing my posts at Christian Forums to be in his blog as well. How can scholarship proceed if no one can build on anyone else's ideas? Indeed the major criticism against me is that I develop my own ideas independent of everyone else. So by your own standards does that make me ahead of everyone else?

Ever so many scholars have presented their analysis of the verses contained in it. Speculation, sure, but excellent scholarship.

Another appeal to the majority. Unsurprisingly we are expected to accept your assessment that scholarship that supports your position as “excellent�. Another assertion expressed as fact.

Where I diverge is accepting the Source within Teeple's source-analysis as the starting point. It's a simple tale, devoid of the supernatural. I base my views on solid scholarship.

Whether or not your views are based upon "solid" scholarship, it might be prudent to let others judge, rather than to blow your own trumpet. For my part I consider that you abuse Teeple’s work, “The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John�. Recently, Sheffield University kindly lent me its copy of Teeple’s book. Having read it I can categorically state that Teeple does not advance the opinion that any of the four major literary strands he identifies within the gospel of John, are derived from “eye-witnesses�. Teeple identifies strand “S� [or Source] as the work of a Hellenistic Christian influenced by the Gospel of Mark and familiar with Jewish Christianity. According to Teeple “S� has a strong interest in the miracle stories and also includes passion materials. Therefore, applying Teeple’s analysis to your proposition, namely that John-Mark was responsible for the Passion material, we must conclude that John-Mark would also be responsible for the miracle stories within John, and was influenced by the gospel of Mark. Why would an eye-witness be influenced by the gospel of Mark when they had allegedly witnessed the events first hand?

Consequently, based upon Teeple, the person responsible for the Passion material in John was not an eye-witness.

Strange, I regard it as a virtue of my hypothesis that the primary source analysis comes from an atheist whose opinions on authorship could not take advantage of my own different presuppositions. Teeple was a genius at analyzing style, but if he is wrong then I am wrong about the eyewitnesses in the Gospel of John. Teeple is a recognized scholar who has never been refuted. (Anyone who spoke ill of him later changed his mind--Robert Kysar and Dwight Moody Smith.) I have always explicitly disclaimed any support from Teeple about eyewitnesses, however. He wrote in 1974 when the assumption that John was late was too universally accepted to question. That my Thesis denies this assumption means that I cannot claim that my Thesis is established fact. I argue for it, I believe it, but I don't expect Fundamentalists on one hand nor atheists on the other to be inclined to consider it. Yes, you could brand as arrogant if I were presenting as established fact what I knew almost everyone would disagree with. It's a paradigm shift that is hard to swallow. Thank you for at least giving it consideration.

The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark, who was the most likely “disciple known to the high priest�. (See John 18:15-16, 20:2-9, in which in John 20:2 the English word “love� is phileo in the Greek, not “agape� as in John 13. In John 18-19 we get events and direct quotes that Peter would not have witnessed.)

Assertion 2: “The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark�

Why is it most likely John Mark? You present no evidence that even hints that John Mark might be anything more than a literary invention let alone a source for an eye-witness account. It is simply a guess, a wild shot in the dark.

John Mark is mentioned several times in Acts of the Apostles and a "Mark" is mentioned among the epistles. He is portrayed as young, so would have been at about the right age when the Last Supper was held at his mother Mary's house (as seems likely).

Mark was the most common name in the Roman Empire. Are you suggesting that every time a “Mark� is mentioned it is the same person? There is no evidence that the last supper [if it actually occurred] was held at Johh-Mark’s [if he existed] mother [if she existed] mary’s [if that was her name] house. It’s all speculation based upon second century Christian folk tales.

Assertion 3: “[John Mark] was most likely the disciple know to the high priest�
Again, not the slightest attempt to provide evidence supporting this claim. (As for what the verb φιλέω [phile� ~ have affection for, like, consider someone a friend] rather than the noun ἀγάπη [agapē ~ esteem, affection, regard, love], has to do with establishing the identity of a supposed eyewitness, you fail to explain)

Sorry, my implication was that John 20:2 related to a different "beloved disciple" than the one in John 13 and 19:26. I acknowledge that this was a different person, probably a later editor of John making these inserts. (Yes, I do think that this was John the Apostle, but that's not critical to whether he was an eyewitness. It is critical to dismissing the main argument against John as author, that a Galilean fisherman would not been the one to write the Johannine theology.) That person in John 20:2-10 was faster than Peter, best fitting a younger man, John Mark. Early Church tradition portrays John Mark as from a priestly family who cut off a finger to make himself ineligible for the priesthood.

Rubbish. Why, everyone knows that John-Mark was cross eyed and had a speech impediment thereby rendering self mutilation an un-necessary measure for automatic disqualification from the priesthood!

You should not say something that some people might misunderstand as serious.

This is no more than unsubstantiated speculation, which, without further elaboration you subsequently treat as established fact underpinning ever more outlandish claims e.g.:

This foundation source from John Mark is the following ………………
…………………………………These provide additional evidence that the person providing this "earliest gospel" was indeed John Mark, as most of these additional verses apparently took place in his house when he was a teenager.

I had earlier attributed the eyewitness nature of the Passion Narrative to Peter's story, so it's only a further refinement that three years ago I realized that the best candidate for a Passion Diary was John Mark. Better seven eyewitnesses than six, but take your pick for which of the seven you can believe.

Why is seven better than six? Are you appealing to numerology? And why is John-Mark the “best candidate�? Simply because you think so does not cut it.

I could go on, but that would be to labour the point, namely, you consistently and systematically fail to provide any evidence supporting speculation which you subsequently assert to be fact.

I do not wish to be unkind, but your output lacks the necessary structure or clarity to qualify as a “thesis�. You fail to set out a methodology by which you test your proposition, but rather you meander between presupposition and conclusion with no intervening analysis or discussion of your supposed findings.

When challenged you simply ignore the demand for evidence whilst regurgitating the same incoherent and largely incomprehensible material over and over again, i.e. argumentum ad nauseam, the classic stratagem of filibuster.

In short, you fail to provide any evidence what-so-ever. Consequently your outpourings, both here and elsewhere are either ignored, or treated less charitably.

When people say something like "fail to provide any evidence what-so-ever", I realize that we are talking about contrasting views of the definition for "evidence",and I come to suspect that no amount of "evidence" would convince that person. Strange how you could complain both that my posts were too lengthy and too short on "evidence".

Quantity does not equate to quality; your posts are long on rhetoric, short on substance.

We have an epistemological problem.
However I do thank you for finally dealing with the "evidence" or whatever you call it. Here (and elsewhere) people are willing to talk about it if they don't have to get into the "evidence".

Korah, I can assure you that we do not have an epistemological problem. We have a problem with your comprehension [lack of] of the meaning of the word “evidence�. Just so as we are clear, when I use the term “evidence� I use the term as defined in the OED:

Evidence:
The available facts, circumstances, etc. supporting or otherwise a belief, proposition etc., or indicating whether or not a thing is true or valid.

How do you define, and use the expression is for anyone to guess. All that I can surmise is that it appears that you cannot grasp the difference between opinion and fact, and fact from fiction.

I have no problem with the definition of "evidence", just with your attempt to misuse the word as applying only to hard facts or incontrovertible proofs. Logical Positivism went out of style 50 years ago.
Edited to add:
Or if you insist on caviling about the word "evidence", here's New Webster's (1995):
"Anything that provides material or information on which a conclusion or proof may be based, an indication..."

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Korah]

That's what I said, I had in my mind one thing, but I more charitably said something else. Accepting academic scholarship would be accepted as a good thing, I would think, whereas having a nihilistic blind-spot would not.

"Academic Scholarship" whose clear agenda is to achieve a plausible theoretical construct by which a desired conclusion can be reached is not "Academic Scholarship" by any definition of the term. I challenge you to provide an example of any generally accepted event in history which is predicated on the acknowledged occurrence of a supernatural event. The most that can be established through academic investigation of the NT story at hand is that there were individuals actively involved in spreading the story that Jesus arose from the dead and subsequently flew away. Acts of the Apostles clearly portrays the early disciples of Jesus doing this very thing. "Academic scholarship" however DOES clearly indicate that a corpse cannot come back to life and fly away. With only unsubstantiated stories to be considered, and NO physical evidence to examine, it is flatly impossible to reach an objective conclusion that well established physical laws were actually violated, then or ever. Agenda driving scholarship is not scholarship at all, you see. Such attempts are only an exercise in speculation. What you are referring to as "a nihilistic blind-spot" is really nothing more then a generous dose of well deserved skepticism over insupportable claims. Supporting insupportable conclusions for personal emotional reasons is really nothing more than a generous dose of blind faith.

[Student]

An excellent response, Student, even going back to my sources. If only you could accept that "evidence" is not limited to incontrovertible "fact". That there is a Passion Narrative, Signs Source, or whatever no one presents as a hard fact, just as highly likely and subject to disproof. By your standards, why do we bother trying to learn anything about the meaning of life, etc.?

There you go again, another unsubstantiated assertion. Why should it be “highly� likely that “there is� a Passion Narrative or Signs Source? Simply because Korah says so? I think not. You clearly cannot comprehend the concept of “evidence� or the difference between evidence and opinion. Various scholars have expressed their opinions, that a Passion Narrative might be likely. Do they state, unequivocally, hand on heart, with absolute certainty that it did exist? No. Do they expect their opinions to be accepted purely on the strength of who they are or that it might represent the opinion of an apparent majority of their peers? No, not if they are true to the academic ideal.

What they do is to state a methodology by which they and others might test their hypotheses, and then provide the reasons, i.e. proofs, to be tested using the stated methodology, thereby demonstrating the strengths / weaknesses of their proposition.

Evidence therefore consists of the stated methodology, and the reasoning/proofs to be assessed using the stated methodology. The quality of evidence depends upon the rigour of the methodology and its application to the reasoning / proofs.

Here we see that you are willing to dismiss standard academic scholarship as just "conjecture".

But if conjecture is what it is then why pretend it is something else. And exactly what is “standard� academic scholarship anyway, and why should it matter? Is �the standard� static? Is today’s standard, based as it is on American evangelical apologetics, the same as last year or last century? No. And will today’s standard be the same tomorrow, next year, next year? I can say with almost certain confidence, no.

This certainly undermines your slurs on my presentation as just conjectures. While not hard fact and not presented as such, what I have said is what it is whether you label it as "evidence" or high-level conjecture.

I never claimed that your outpourings were conjecture. I never conceded that what you wrote achieved such an elevated position. What said that what you wrote was argument by assertion, wishful thinking, and/or fiction. You have never provided sufficient evidence or reasoning, much less set out a methodology by which to judge your proposition, to qualify your product as conjecture.

I never said Kirby endorses my Thesis of seven written gospel eyewitnesses, even though he did the courtesy of editing my posts at Christian Forums to be in his blog as well.

Another disingenuous statement. Perhaps it would be more accurate to state that although Kirby edited your posts he prefaced them by stating unambiguously “These are not my ideas� http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtop ... 1571b#p495

How can scholarship proceed if no one can build on anyone else's ideas?

The very conceit, that your assertions equate to scholarship!

Indeed the major criticism against me is that I develop my own ideas independent of everyone else. So by your own standards does that make me ahead of everyone else?

No, it does not make you ahead. By my standards words fail me when it comes to describing you, but “backwards� springs to mind. You do not “develop ideas. You proceed by the simple mechanism of assertion. No argument, no reasoning, no methodology nothing. When you advance something, anything in support of your proposition, other than simple assertion, it might be possible to have a reasoned discussion.

Rubbish. Why, everyone knows that John-Mark was cross eyed and had a speech impediment thereby rendering self mutilation an un-necessary measure for automatic disqualification from the priesthood!

You should not say something that some people might misunderstand as serious.

Why not? You do it all the time.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 232 by Student]
The above post so violates Forum rules that I do not want to risk my own good standing here by replying to it "what-so-ever"!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 232 by Student]
The above post so violates Forum rules that I do not want to risk my own good standing here by replying to it "what-so-ever"!

And the reason you stopped replying to me would be....?

[Korah]

[Replying to Korah]

That's what I said, I had in my mind one thing, but I more charitably said something else. Accepting academic scholarship would be accepted as a good thing, I would think, whereas having a nihilistic blind-spot would not.

"Academic Scholarship" whose clear agenda is to achieve a plausible theoretical construct by which a desired conclusion can be reached is not "Academic Scholarship" by any definition of the term.

Most academic scholarship does reach some conclusions, though some may be merely that we don't know the answer. (Probably based on a preconception of Agnosticism.)

I challenge you to provide an example of any generally accepted event in history which is predicated on the acknowledged occurrence of a supernatural event.

I doubt that you have the M. A. in History that I do, so I doubt that you understand that History is done with Methodological Naturalism. Supernatural events cannot be accepted as fact, but this does not imply Philosophical Naturalism, that we know in advance that there is no supernatural.

The most that can be established through academic investigation of the NT story at hand is that there were individuals actively involved in spreading the story that Jesus arose from the dead and subsequently flew away.

Yes, that is indeed what most historians believe and write.

Acts of the Apostles clearly portrays the early disciples of Jesus doing this very thing.

Agreed. Am I right in surmising that this constitutes for you an argument against the Resurrection? One would have thought that people saying it was true would be some evidence that it was true, rather than that is was false.

"Academic scholarship" however DOES clearly indicate that a corpse cannot come back to life and fly away.

The presuppositions on which it is based do not allow such conclusions, whether it is true or not.

With only unsubstantiated stories to be considered, and NO physical evidence to examine, it is flatly impossible to reach an objective conclusion that well established physical laws were actually violated, then or ever.

Certainly by these criteria any such conclusion would not be "objective". However, this would have nothing to do with whether some of my sources are "historical" if no supernatural activity is presupposed. This particularly applies to my Passion Diary and the Discourse Source, two of the first three posts of mine I list at my Post #155.

Agenda driving scholarship is not scholarship at all, you see. Such attempts are only an exercise in speculation.

All scholarship is speculation, according to you, apparently. And maybe you are right.!

What you are referring to as "a nihilistic blind-spot" is really nothing more then a generous dose of well deserved skepticism over insupportable claims. Supporting insupportable conclusions for personal emotional reasons is really nothing more than a generous dose of blind faith.

Given the example you gave, you are correct.
What does this have to do with me or the seven written accounts detectible in the four gospels as from eyewitnesses to Jesus? My evidence that they are early makes this the default position. The burden of proof is on those who would prove them to be fakery.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Korah]

Most academic scholarship does reach some conclusions, though some may be merely that we don't know the answer. (Probably based on a preconception of Agnosticism.)

"I don't know" is a perfectly good answer when it accurately reflects the limits of what can be demonstrated through physical evidence. "I don't know" also represents the philosophical limits of fallible humans to "know" things with perfect certainty. As our technological sophistication grows however, it becomes very obvious that it is possible to "know" things to a very HIGH level of certainty.

I challenge you to provide an example of any generally accepted event in history which is predicated on the acknowledged occurrence of a supernatural event.

Most academic scholarship does reach some conclusions, though some may be merely that we don't know the answer. (Probably based on a preconception of Agnosticism.)

A round-about way of agreeing with me. No generally accepted example of a supernatural occurrence can be demonstrated. Not one. Does that indicate that they NEVER occur? That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

I doubt that you have the M. A. in History that I do, so I doubt that you understand that History is done with Methodological Naturalism. Supernatural events cannot be accepted as fact, but this does not imply Philosophical Naturalism, that we know in advance that there is no supernatural.

I have multiple degrees myself, and I am well past being impressed with myself over it. I'm 66 years old, and I understand now that my long ago post graduate work was only the early baby steps in my efforts to accumulate knowledge.

"Naturalism" occurs from the overwhelming recognition that virtually everything that was once believed to be direct evidence of the supernatural, we now recognize to be the result of entirely natural processes at work. Given that NO ACTUAL SUPERNATURAL EVENTS can even be shown unequivocally to have occurred, we certainly have no reason to suppose that those few grey areas in our knowledge which still exist won't prove to be entirely the result of natural processes as well. The weight of evidence suggests it to a high degree of probability.

The most that can be established through academic investigation of the NT story at hand is that there were individuals actively involved in spreading the story that Jesus arose from the dead and subsequently flew away.

Yes, that is indeed what most historians believe and write.

Because while we are faced with the recognition that NO supernatural events can be conclusively established to have ever occurred, we are also faced with the overwhelming and undeniable fact that humans are prone to invent, falsify and lie for for purposes of their own. Nor do those purposes necessarily need to be especially strong. Lying comes almost as easily as exhaling. On the other hand, Humans are perfectly capable of completely misinterpreting what they believe they have experienced, and of reaching conclusions which in reality have nothing whatsoever to do with what actually occurred. Meanwhile, NO supernatural events can be conclusively established to have ever occurred, and that remains constant.

Acts of the Apostles clearly portrays the early disciples of Jesus doing this very thing (spreading the tale of the reanimated flying corpse of Jesus).

Agreed. Am I right in surmising that this constitutes for you an argument against the Resurrection? One would have thought that people saying it was true would be some evidence that it was true, rather than that is was false.

No, you would be wrong. I have a perfectly well reasoned explanation for the origin and spread of Christianity, and I will be most happy to provide it to you if you wish. The fact that people were telling the tale of the risen Christ is easily explained. The physical evidence that the events themselves actually occurred, so blatantly in violation of well established physical law, reason, logic and common sense, simply does not exist however. Preposterous claims with no actual physical evidence to support them cannot, and should not, be considered sufficient to overthrow well established physical law.

"Academic scholarship" however DOES clearly indicate that a corpse cannot come back to life and fly away.

The presuppositions on which it is based do not allow such conclusions, whether it is true or not.

Of course it does. In exactly the same way that we presuppose that reindeer do not actually fly, simply because someone has declared that Santa has magic. At the end of the day, unless we are provided with actual examples of flying reindeer, we have every right to make the presupposition that reindeer do not fly. All within the understanding that humans are fallible of course, and as such are always subject to being wrong. We have every right however to reach conclusions based on a high order of empirical observation and probability. The lack of actual physical examples of both flying reindeer and flying reanimated corpses, based on what we know about the conditions by which controlled flight is achieved, as well as the range of potential things that reindeer and corpses are physically able to achieve, make the conclusion that such claims are unlikely to a degree which is so overwhelmingly certain that the claims themselves actually appear to be quite comical. Does that mean that these claims are not true? Yes, that is the overwhelmingly obvious conclusion. Now the question becomes, if such things ARE believed by some to be true, does there exist some personal ulterior motive for those individuals to persist in clinging to a belief in something so obviously unbelievable? Well?

With only unsubstantiated stories to be considered, and NO physical evidence to examine, it is flatly impossible to reach an objective conclusion that well established physical laws were actually violated, then or ever.

Certainly by these criteria any such conclusion would not be "objective". However, this would have nothing to do with whether some of my sources are "historical" if no supernatural activity is presupposed. This particularly applies to my Passion Diary and the Discourse Source, two of the first three posts of mine I list at my Post #155.

What credibility do you hold out for non Christian religious scripture which details the passionate claims for THOSE OTHER most devoutly held religious beliefs? Or in reality does nonsense remain nonsense despite depth of personal devotion?

Agenda driving scholarship is not scholarship at all, you see. Such attempts are only an exercise in speculation.

All scholarship is speculation, according to you, apparently. And maybe you are right.

Ultimately conclusions should be a result of what the physical evidence can clearly establish. What conclusion do you suppose will ultimately be reached, if the conclusion has been presupposed from the onset? Should a presupposed conclusion that is based on overwhelming physical evidence NOT take precedent over a conclusion that actually serves to violate all physical evidence, especially when no real physical evidence for the contradictory claim is provided? How would YOU suggest that we reconcile competing claims? What method would you suggest we use in an effort to attain actual knowledge, if not a slavish devotion to the empirical method which is now so well tried and well established? Consider all of the religious beliefs, current and those which existed in the past but for which modern adherents no longer exist. Clearly, they got it wrong. Making up answers and then declaring them to be true has a very poor track record historically.

What you are referring to as "a nihilistic blind-spot" is really nothing more then a generous dose of well deserved skepticism over insupportable claims. Supporting insupportable conclusions for personal emotional reasons is really nothing more than a generous dose of blind faith.

Given the example you gave, you are correct.
What does this have to do with me or the seven written accounts detectable in the four gospels as from eyewitnesses to Jesus? My evidence that they are early makes this the default position.

Given the high order of probability that the stories of the risen Christ were the direct result of stories told by his earliest followers, including those closest to him, his apostles, and that these individuals were responsible for the missing corpse of Jesus and the fabrication of the entire tale of the risen Jesus, then the inclusion of their narrative into the texts is both explainable and understandable. It doesn't serve to make corpses fly, however.

The burden of proof is on those who would prove them to be fakery.

The burden of proof is on those who make outrageous claims that violate all known physical law.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 236 by Tired of the Nonsense]
Once again you fail to address whatsoever my Thesis that the four gospels contain seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Implicitly you deny the four that describe miraculous events, but even by your presuppositions, that would only tend to show that they were deluded or lying, not that they were not eyewitnesses.

Q is generally regarded as very early and without supernatural events, as is the Passion Narrative as I detailed from the Source within the Gospel of John. Nor do the Discourses within John relate the supernatural. That makes three likely eyewitness accounts about Jesus that you do not even implicitly touch by your broad-brush approach. My position remains the default.

[Zzyzx]

.

Once again you fail to address whatsoever my Thesis that the four gospels contain seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

Have you noticed that no one here seems at all interested in or accepting of your thesis? Didn't you find the same response from the academic, scholarly and theistic communities as well as other websites? Does that not tell you something?

Implicitly you deny the four that describe miraculous events, but even by your presuppositions, that would only tend to show that they were deluded or lying, not that they were not eyewitnesses.

Since you claim that there were seven written eyewitness accounts (directly contrary to the findings of Christian scholars and theologians) it is YOUR responsibility to prove your case – which you have failed to accomplish (evidently to anyone's satisfaction other than your own).

Q is generally regarded as very early and without supernatural events, as is the Passion Narrative as I detailed from the Source within the Gospel of John. Nor do the Discourses within John relate the supernatural. That makes three likely eyewitness accounts about Jesus that you do not even implicitly touch by your broad-brush approach. My position remains the default.

Your position appears to remain IN default.

Since you have not established the credibility of your "thesis" it might be prudent to present credible evidence regarding determination of which parts of scripture are true (the OP question) if you can do so.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Korah]

Once again you fail to address whatsoever my Thesis that the four gospels contain seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Implicitly you deny the four that describe miraculous events, but even by your presuppositions, that would only tend to show that they were deluded or lying, not that they were not eyewitnesses.

It's my contention, based on the NT accounts, which is after all the ONLY possible source of detailed information concerning the life and death of Jesus which ANYONE accepts as potentially valid, that the apostles and some of the early followers of Jesus were responsible for the origin and dissemination of the baseless rumor of the risen Jesus. I acknowledge the possibility, at least, that some of the dialogue which is to be found in the Gospels MAY have been taken directly from the stories that the apostles and others were in the process of telling in the years following the execution of Jesus. Some of the details of the early ministry of Jesus MAY even reflect actual events. Those portions that COULD be true MAY be true. Other details however, those portions that make claims of walking and speaking to Jesus, newly risen from the dead, along with accounts of his physical flight off up into the sky, should no more be considered actual "eyewitness" accounts of actual events, then various claims to the truth of the existence of a flying sleigh pulled by a team of flying reindeer should reasonably be considered genuine "eyewitness" accounts. The tale of the risen Jesus as contained in the NT indicates that only the immediate followers of Jesus "experienced" the "risen" man. Otherwise, the claim produced not the slightest ripple of historical comment from anyone else AT THE TIME IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE OCCURRED. Given the unrealistic nature of what they are claiming, and the fact that the early disciples of Jesus clearly had the means, motive, and opportunity to have attempted such a hoax, then this conclusion is completely and entirely consistent with a false rumor being spread by a specific and limited group of individuals with a specific agenda in mind. Preposterous claims are not rendered viable simply because they are made by multiple individuals. Especially when a connecting motive exists between all of those making the claim. If the early disciples of Jesus "were deluded or lying" about what they were claiming then they clearly were not actual "eyewitnesses" to what they were claiming at all. They were deluded or lying.

Q is generally regarded as very early and without supernatural events, as is the Passion Narrative as I detailed from the Source within the Gospel of John. Nor do the Discourses within John relate the supernatural. That makes three likely eyewitness accounts about Jesus that you do not even implicitly touch by your broad-brush approach. My position remains the default.

The "Q" IS generally regarded by Christian theologians as necessarily very early, this is true. It's also a product of make believe, since no such document can be established to have ever existed, except through assumption and speculation. The "Q" is an example of Christian mythology striving to produce it's own wish fulfillment, and nothing more.