If the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

[Zzyzx]

.
If (since) the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

From a current thread:

I’m not interesting in proclaiming the Gospels are a 100% accurate and precise account of Christ’s ministry on Earth since I can’t prove they were.

Since the Gospels cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate, would it be wise to “take them with a grain of salt� (or a boatload)?

Why regard them as truthful and accurate if they cannot be shown to be so?

Wishful thinking? Desire to believe? Indoctrination?

[benchwarmer]

Hi rspielmann, welcome to the fray.

Historical analysis and textual criticism cannot tell us 'what happened,' but can give us a sense of 'what probably happened.'

I'm more or less with you on that one. Historians can come to some conclusions that tell us what likely happened in the past. The more evidence there is, especially if it is from disconnected sources, the more compelling the case. If there are physical artifacts that support the hypothesis then even better.

When it comes to the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the gospels, historians can tells much about what really happened, more so than any other ancient historical figure.

And there is where you lost me. I suggest reading some of the recent threads on the historical Jesus if you haven't already. There is very little evidence that Jesus even existed. Even if we assume all that exists is fairly solid (which it isn't) there really isn't much of it.

At best, historians can only say that Jesus may have existed if the gospel stories can be trusted. There's very little corroborating evidence for these stories. If you dig into the aforementioned threads, you will find there is actually a case to be made that Jesus is a myth (I'm not making that case, but the case that has been made is compelling and backed up by convincing evidence).

Did Caesar cross the Rubicon? Was Socrates an historical figure? The gospel writers embellished much about him, but if we rely on scholars who have dedicated their lives to learning the original languages of the time (Greek and Aramaic) and who are steeped in the historical method(s), we can know much about this guy.

We can certainly ascertain what the authors likely believed. We can also analyze the texts and realize that a lot of it was copied from a small number of sources with embellishments added.

Unless we employ 'faith' we can't really know much else in my opinion.

[rspielmann]

Thanks for responding, Benchwarmer. I just found this site so I'm still figuring out how it works!

I was puzzled that you question the existence of this 1st century Palestinian rabbi. The consensus among trained historians is that he was an historical figure. True, some historians make the claim that he never existed (Richard Carrier, Tom Harpur in The Pagan Christ), but the issue is settled among the vast majority of historians. As an historian myself, the issue is really one of determining what this man really said and did.
How serious is your challenge as to his historicity?

[benchwarmer]

Thanks for responding, Benchwarmer. I just found this site so I'm still figuring out how it works!

I was puzzled that you question the existence of this 1st century Palestinian rabbi. The consensus among trained historians is that he was an historical figure. True, some historians make the claim that he never existed (Richard Carrier, Tom Harpur in The Pagan Christ), but the issue is settled among the vast majority of historians. As an historian myself, the issue is really one of determining what this man really said and did.
How serious is your challenge as to his historicity?

You'll get the hang of things pretty quickly. As long as you remain civil and respectful, you will be fine and enjoy your time here.

To be honest I have long thought the existence of Jesus was 'a done deal'. i.e. I thought there was so much evidence it wasn't even worth looking into. My eyes have recently be opened. In one of the threads I mentioned:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... highlight=

I challenged the claimant about his so called 'bedrock' facts. I started with his first one "Jesus of Nazareth existed". I did that thinking it would be an easy case to prove and I was going to challenge the claimant to use the same amount of logic and evidence to prove the other claims which I thought were shaky. Much to my genuine shock, it seems even the existence of Jesus is 'shaky'.

I understand there is a consensus among many historians. Given that, I assumed there was loads of evidence to reach that consensus and it would be easy to show that there is a high level of confidence that Jesus did in fact exist. I realize there is no way to prove Jesus existed, but I expected overwhelming evidence given He is the main figure in Christianity. It turns out I was wrong.

If you feel you have compelling evidence, please jump in one of the threads discussing this very topic. I would be most interested to see anything that hasn't already be presented.

[rspielmann]

Thanks, Benchwarmer. I used to interact on Doctrine.org until I was politely asked to stop contributing 'heresy' to a website designed to build Christian character. This site thus far seems to be more accommodating.

No 'new' compelling evidence. One could cite the Roman historian Tacticus writing in the early 2nd century, etc., but to what effect? My position is that he probably existed and that, whether he did or not, what are we to do with the teachings and activities recorded in the gospels? I guess I'm looking for a thread/discussion along the lines of textual criticism and 'what probably happened' that gave rise to the historical facticity of the early 'Christian' movement. Can you direct me somewhere for such discussion, Benchwarmer? That would be great.

[MadeNew]

[Replying to post 15 by MadeNew]

Im not going to continue to debate this, you say they are starving and not being fed,

I didn't say that.

The claim was made that God feeds birds. This is patently absurd since birds have to go out to hunt and/or scavenge for their food.

Telling me they got to go find their food, therefor no God, isn't worth a debate.

I'm not saying that they hunt, therefore no God. I'm saying they hunt, therefore God is NOT feeding them. There is no sign at all that God is doing anything at all to provide food for the birds, especially since many birds do end up starving to death.
Heck, look at penguins in their natural habitat.
Heck again, if you're logic is that since God created everything this counts as him feeding birds, then this means that he provides rapists with their rape victims.

What do you think the author of Matthew meant when he wrote that God feeds the birds in Matthew 6?

Do you think he meant that God hand feeds birds? Or something like that? Because that is how you guys are debating this. That Matthew 6 is about God hand feeding birds, which isn't true because they go find their food themselves... Is that the debate?

When i look around, what do i see? I see birds living just fine. They do not plan, they do not sow, reap, or store grains, and they are living just fine. And the scripture is true when it points this out. Debating against this will not amount to anything, because i can look out my window right now and see the reality of life, and some comment in a forum on the internet isn't going to change that.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 25 by MadeNew]

When i look around, what do i see? I see birds living just fine. They do not plan, they do not sow, reap, or store grains, and they are living just fine.

So where is God in their life? They are flying about, hunting for food.

Also, what do you say to my response to your logic? If you say that "God provides for them" means that God created everything and thus one can say that this means one can indeed say God feeds bird, then this means God also provided the rapist with his rape victim.

[JLB32168]

Since the Gospels cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate, would it be wise to “take them with a grain of salt� (or a boatload)?

Your statement that the Gospels cannot be shown to be truthful – as if they are riddled with lies and falsehoods – is comically loaded language.

I don’t see the value of the argument “We don’t know if they’re true� with the theist. We don’t know they’re false either.

[MadeNew]

[Replying to post 25 by MadeNew]

When i look around, what do i see? I see birds living just fine. They do not plan, they do not sow, reap, or store grains, and they are living just fine.

So where is God in their life? They are flying about, hunting for food.

Also, what do you say to my response to your logic? If you say that "God provides for them" means that God created everything and thus one can say that this means one can indeed say God feeds bird, then this means God also provided the rapist with his rape victim.

Because God provides food for people to eat he also provided a rape victim for someone to rape? Im not even going to continue this debate.

[benchwarmer]

Thanks, Benchwarmer. I used to interact on Doctrine.org until I was politely asked to stop contributing 'heresy' to a website designed to build Christian character. This site thus far seems to be more accommodating.

No 'new' compelling evidence. One could cite the Roman historian Tacticus writing in the early 2nd century, etc., but to what effect? My position is that he probably existed and that, whether he did or not, what are we to do with the teachings and activities recorded in the gospels? I guess I'm looking for a thread/discussion along the lines of textual criticism and 'what probably happened' that gave rise to the historical facticity of the early 'Christian' movement. Can you direct me somewhere for such discussion, Benchwarmer? That would be great.

You could maybe try the new user group "Historical Jesus". It is fairly new so not much in there yet, but maybe that would be interesting for you. Aside from that, you could always start a new thread with a position that you would like to debate in this subforum (Christianity and Apologetics). If you simply want a discussion, you could start a thread in General Chat and see if there is any interest.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... m.php?f=74

Aside from that you could just watch the goings on and jump in on whatever you would like to contribute to. Have fun!

[For_The_Kingdom]

.
If (since) the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

From a current thread:

I’m not interesting in proclaiming the Gospels are a 100% accurate and precise account of Christ’s ministry on Earth since I can’t prove they were.

Since the Gospels cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate, would it be wise to “take them with a grain of salt� (or a boatload)?

Why regard them as truthful and accurate if they cannot be shown to be so?

Wishful thinking? Desire to believe? Indoctrination?

Damn bruh, you seem to be going on a tirade against either Jesus, Christianity, or the Gospels for the past few months (or at least the last month). Are these subjects that much of a concern to you, a nonbeliever? Geez.