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?

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

Had you been a member more than a few months it would be apparent that I have questioned the authenticity of the Gospels for ten years here (and for many additional decades elsewhere).

To date no one has presented credible reason why their religious literature should be regarded as any more reliable than other, contradictory, religious writings. It has not been shown that the Gospels are anything more than recordings of folk tales, oral religious stories, legend, myth, and/or fantasy.

My concern with ANY religious advertising / propaganda is that it is often used to coerce Non-Believers to adhere to preferences of one of the religions.

Notice that the OP question is "Why regard them as truthful and accurate if they cannot be shown to be so?". Care to take a stab at that instead of bellyaching about my "tirade"?

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

That depends what you mean by 'not accurate' ... If the Gospel is inaccurate about a minor detail, we might expect this out of an eye witness testimony. There may be different perspectives and the element of human flaw might be present. Would that mean they got, say the resurrection wrong by an inaccuracy? That is a little bit of a far stretch. I guess you would have to show why they would be inaccurate about Christ as the Son of God, which isn't a minor detail and perhaps isn't something that they would mistakenly be inaccurate about on minor details.

They question is why did these authors write the Gospels, what are they accurate about, and what are they not accurate about? I have pretty much came to the concussion that they are either lying or they are telling the truth, there isn't much room to mistakenly claim Jesus was resurrected, unless you could show that by debate.

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

The example I just gave to bjs applies here too.

Jesus is the one who claimed that God feeds the birds. But today any educated person will tell you that birds have to go out at great peril to their own lives and to the lives of their babies, to compete for food. Often they become the food of their predators in the process.

So is this how "God feeds the birds", by having the birds scavenge, steal, and even eat the eggs and babies of other birds to stay alive?

So here we have Jesus himself being attributed to having said absurd things that we can easily see are false.

You can hardly have animals working hard to scavenge their own food at the risk of becoming prey themselves and claim that this is how "God feeds them".

So we even see Jesus himself being attributed to spouting verifiable absolute nonsense.

Well i don't see that as nonsense, and you haven't really shown us that God doesn't feed the birds, you have just questioned if it is true.

Are you kidding me?...........can't show that God "Doesn't" feed the birds??

Do you understand that you can't prove a negative??

Look if I say.........you can't prove that Bugs Bunny (TV cartoon character) doesn't feed the birds you will laugh in my face because there is no evidence proving that a character like that exists let alone that he feeds all the birds.

But........ you can't prove that he doesn't...only that there is no evidence he does or could.........

.....and that is the exact same dilemma your claim of a Biblical God feeding birds is caught up in as well.

The simple fact is this Christ character or whatever words were attributed to him in the Gospels clearly show the ignorance of humans in that time of how an ecosystem of species interrelation works within given environmental pressures.

The Bible is a mess when it comes to dealing with reality because they understood so little of it then.

[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.

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.

Now you're disagreeing with your own logic. In previous comments, this line about "God feeding birds" was brought up, to which I responded by asking where God is doing this feeding, only for you to reply back saying that God indeed 'feeds' birds by mere virtue of having created everything.
This would then mean, logically speaking, that the statement "God provides rapists with rape victims" is also valid, since he created both (in Christian theology).
If you're going to disagree with the providing of rape victims, then this means that God does not also feed birds a.k.a. provide them with food.
After all...look what the birds are doing. They are hunting other creatures such as worms, killing them and devouring them. If this is God 'feeding' them and you have no problem with that line of thinking, then why are you are having a problem with the slightly less horrible line of "God provides rapists with rape victims"?

[Hawkins]

.
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?

It's accuracy can only be confirmed in the court of Heaven. Everything else remains human's speculation. Moreover, if you failed to tell how different Christianity is comparing to other religions, it only tells that you speculation is incorrect.

[rikuoamero]

.
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?

It's accuracy can only be confirmed in the court of Heaven. Everything else remains human's speculation. Moreover, if you failed to tell how different Christianity is comparing to other religions, it only tells that you speculation is incorrect.

Then as you say...I will not believe the Gospels. If I die and find myself in heaven and am told that the Gospels were true all along...maybe I'll believe then.

[Hawkins]

.
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?

It's accuracy can only be confirmed in the court of Heaven. Everything else remains human's speculation. Moreover, if you failed to tell how different Christianity is comparing to other religions, it only tells that you speculation is incorrect.

Then as you say...I will not believe the Gospels. If I die and find myself in heaven and am told that the Gospels were true all along...maybe I'll believe then.

It's your life, it's your call. By then you may see hell.

However, others will make their own choice. The point is, why do you have to attack Christianity if only by then things can be made clear?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 36 by Hawkins]

It's your life, it's your call. By then you may see hell.

You sound so unconcerned about that. Where's the vaunted Christian compassion I hear so much about?

The point is, why do you have to attack Christianity if only by then things can be made clear?

The point is, why do you believe Christianity if only in heaven will the gospels be confirmed? You're basically saying here you're believing in something BEFORE it's been confirmed.
Imagine if court juries operated like that, believing that the defendant is guilty before the actual court case.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Notice that the OP question is "Why regard them as truthful and accurate if they cannot be shown to be so?". Care to take a stab at that instead of bellyaching about my "tirade"?

Yeah, and the OP question assumes that the Gospels cannot be shown to be so. It is basically a loaded question.

[Kapyong]

Gday For_The_Kingdom and all

Yeah, and the OP question assumes that the Gospels cannot be shown to be so. It is basically a loaded question.

Not so.

It actually ASKS the question :

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

We have seen many arguments here that the Gospels can be shown NOT accurate in various ways.

But the hyperbelievers have failed, time and time again, to show that the Gospels are accurate for anything that matters.

While conspicuously failing to address the arguments against the Gospels.

The only arguments in favour of the Gospels are BELIEFS about BOOKS.
Christianity started with BELIEFS about BOOKS.

The NT books were handed down through history from unknown sources.

While these books may have been written from c.50 (Paul), and c.70-100 (Gospels) - no Christian writer ever saw them until c.150 - over a CENTURY after the alleged events.

Christianity is based on BELIEFS about anonymous BOOKS which only started appearing about a CENTURY after the alleged events.

But before the Gospels appeared, there is about a CENTURY that is totally UNKNOWN - and which has NO clear evidence of a historical Jesus.


Kapyong

[Zzyzx]

.

Notice that the OP question is "Why regard them as truthful and accurate if they cannot be shown to be so?". Care to take a stab at that instead of bellyaching about my "tirade"?

Yeah, and the OP question assumes that the Gospels cannot be shown to be so. It is basically a loaded question.

Careful reading of the question should make one aware of the word IF -- which negates an assumption.

Those who think they can show that Gospel tales ARE truthful and accurate are welcome to make their case.