Civil Debates on Christianity and Religions

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Reply to topic
Zzyzx
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:28 am  If the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . . Reply with quote

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

From a current thread:

JLB32168 wrote:

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?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 41: Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:42 am
Reply
Re: If the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

Like this post
Zzyzx wrote:

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



Yeah, but notice in the first sentence of your OP, you have the word "since" in parentheses right next to your "if".
Quite disingenuous.

Zzyzx wrote:

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


And anyone who has a case AGAINST any case that can be made for the truthful/accuracy of the Gospels are also welcomed to make their case.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 42: Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:43 am
Reply
Re: If the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

Like this post
Kapyong wrote:
But the hyperbelievers have failed, time and time again, to show that the Gospels are accurate for anything that matters.
What criteria did you use to determine what matters v. what is irrelevant?
Kapyong wrote:
The NT books were handed down through history from unknown sources.
What is this suppose to mean?
Kapyong wrote:
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.
What is your source?
Kapyong wrote:
But before the Gospels appeared, there is about a CENTURY that is totally UNKNOWN - and which has NO clear evidence of a historical Jesus.
Oral tradition precedes its written counterpart. You would first have to demonstrate that oral tradition is widely inaccurate. You can’t prove that. You’ve also failed to consider that the Gospels were compiled from earlier written accounts – accounts that fell out of use after being compiled into the Gospels.

Goto top, bottom
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 43: Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:07 pm
Reply
Re: If the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

Like this post
.
For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

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

Yeah, but notice in the first sentence of your OP, you have the word "since" in parentheses right next to your "if".
Quite disingenuous.

Disingenuous is defined as: not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere

“If (since)” indicates an alternative rather than a claim. Had I intended “since” only, IF would not have preceded it.

One should be VERY careful accusing others of dishonesty in this Forum. It is not only contrary to Forum Rules but false accusations are also a tactic often used by those who do not fare well in debate.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

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

And anyone who has a case AGAINST any case that can be made for the truthful/accuracy of the Gospels are also welcomed to make their case.

That case is made repeatedly in these debates:

1. Authorship unknown to Christian scholars and theologians – though “known for sure” by amateur (in-the-pew) Christians

2. Place and time of writing unknown or uncertain

3. No assurance that Gospel writers had personal knowledge of events and conversations they describe

4. Written decades or generations after described events

5. Sources of information used by writers unknown – and cannot be shown to be anything more substantial than hearsay, folklore, legend, myth, and/or religious fantasy.

6. Authors (whoever they were) demonstrate having a personal agenda of promoting certain beliefs – rather than recording with historical / factual accuracy

7. Evidence of copying from each other or from a common source


By contrast, the “case for Gospel authenticity” is “they believed”.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 44: Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:53 am
Reply
Re: If the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

Like this post
Zzyzx wrote:

Disingenuous is defined as: not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere


I was being modest when I said disingenuous, because I was tempted to say DISHONEST.

Zzyzx wrote:

“If (since)” indicates an alternative rather than a claim. Had I intended “since” only, IF would not have preceded it.

One should be VERY careful accusing others of dishonesty in this Forum. It is not only contrary to Forum Rules but false accusations are also a tactic often used by those who do not fare well in debate.


You said one thing in the title of the thread, then once the first sentence of the thread is read, there is a word inputted in there which, in my opinion as I read it, seems to change the context of what the TITLE said.

But that's just me. But whatever.

Zzyzx wrote:

That case is made repeatedly in these debates:

1. Authorship unknown to Christian scholars and theologians – though “known for sure” by amateur (in-the-pew) Christians


No one knows who wrote anything in antiquity with 100% certainty, so the question becomes: what reasons do we have to believe that x wrote y, and can a case be made to demonstrate such?

Answer: Certainly.

Zzyzx wrote:

2. Place and time of writing unknown or uncertain


Can a case be made one way or the other? Answer: Certainly.

Zzyzx wrote:

3. No assurance that Gospel writers had personal knowledge of events and conversations they describe


Can a case be made one way or the other? Answer: Certainly.

Zzyzx wrote:

4. Written decades or generations after described events


Your #2 contradicts your #4: If you are claiming that the place and time of writing is unknown/uncertain (#2), how can you go on to say it was written decades or generations after described events (#4).

So on one hand; it is unknown when it was written. Other hand; it was written decades after described events.

Typical example of the skeptic trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Zzyzx wrote:

5. Sources of information used by writers unknown – and cannot be shown to be anything more substantial than hearsay, folklore, legend, myth, and/or religious fantasy.


If the content is nothing more than hearssay, folklore, legend, myth, fantasy...then there was no real event to be "described", yet you claimed in #4 that the material was written decades or generations after the described events, thus, presupposing that there was an event to be described.

SMH. You are just living to attack the Gospels, aren't you, bruh?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 45: Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:42 pm
Reply
Re: If the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

Like this post
JLB32168 wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:
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.


RESPONSE:

Don't know if they're false either. Proof of contradiction indicates the not all the accounts are true.

For example. did Jesus send for and ride two animals of different sizes when he entered Jerusalem (Matthew verses Mark, Luke, and John)?

Was Jesus born during the lifetime of King Herod (who died in 4 BC) of during the census of Judea conducted by Quirinius in 6 AD?

Was Jesus crucified on the day before Passover (John) or on Passover (Matthew, Mark, Luke)?

Aren't Matthews claims that certain prophecies were fulfilled in error, IE Jesus was never prophecized to be a Nazarene, Jeremiah never said the 30 pieces of silver were paid in a betrayal, etc.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 46: Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:27 pm
Reply

Like this post
For_The_Kingdom wrote:


I was being modest when I said disingenuous, because I was tempted to say DISHONEST.
SMH. You are just living to attack the Gospels, aren't you, bruh?


Warning Moderator Warning


Still, you are accusing your opponent of dishonesty, even if you soften your choice of words to do so.

Also, do not verbalize or judge another's motives or apparent agenda.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 47: Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:37 pm
Reply
Re: If the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

Like this post
polonius.advice wrote:
Don't know if they're false either. Proof of contradiction indicates the not all the accounts are true.
#1 – You have a novel interpretation of contradiction and discrepancy as defined by Merriam-Webster and Oxford. #2 – An “incomplete” account that leaves out some details doesn’t mean that there’s a contradiction in accounts. Leaving out an animal in the entry of Jerusalem is an example.

For Herod and Quirinius – an obvious error was made; hwoever, the fact that two historical people that were contemporarites are mentioned doesn’t decrease the authority for me.

polonius.advice wrote:
Was Jesus crucified on the day before Passover (John) or on Passover (Matthew, Mark, Luke)?
The Passover is celebrated over several days, Dude, and the failure of prophecies to be fulfilled presupposes a canonical OT. We already know that there was no Jewish canon as such in Christ’s time.

Goto top, bottom
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 48: Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:18 pm
Reply
Re: If the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

Like this post
[Replying to post 47 by JLB32168]

Quote:
An “incomplete” account that leaves out some details doesn’t mean that there’s a contradiction in accounts. Leaving out an animal in the entry of Jerusalem is an example.


Why would the gospel author who didn't mention the second animal not mention it? Was it a minor detail, Jesus somehow riding simultaneously on two separate animals? Heck, I thought it was supposed to be a fulfilment of prophecy.

Quote:
For Herod and Quirinius – an obvious error was made; hwoever, the fact that two historical people that were contemporarites are mentioned doesn’t decrease the authority for me.

But it's still a MAJOR problem for the theology, since Jesus's crucifixion is supposedly dated by the Suffering Servant prophecy in Isaiah. If one could nail down Jesus's actual birthday, then we could calculate whether or not Jesus's crucifixion was indeed dated by Isaiah.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 49: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:18 am
Reply

Like this post
JLB posted
Quote:
You have a novel interpretation of contradiction and discrepancy as defined by Merriam-Webster and Oxford. #2 – An “incomplete” account that leaves out some details doesn’t mean that there’s a contradiction in accounts. Leaving out an animal in the entry of Jerusalem is an example.


RESPONSE: On the contrary, I use the common sense interpretation of the words used in the Gospels.

Mark, Luke, and John all report specifically that Jesus sent for and rode ONE animal when entering Jerusalem. Matthew alone says specifically that Jesus sent for and rode TWO animals which were of different size so that what he considered a prophecy (which he misinterpreted) was fulfilled.

The essential details are provided. And the number "one" is different that the number "two". Thus there is a contradiction. Both versions cannot be correct.

Aristotle's law of non-contradiction states that "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

Are you seriously arguing that Mark, Luke, and John miscounted but Matthew didn't?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 50: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:28 am
Reply
Re: If the gospels cannot be shown to be accurate . . .

Like this post
JLB32168 wrote:

polonius.advice wrote:
Don't know if they're false either. Proof of contradiction indicates the not all the accounts are true.
#1 – You have a novel interpretation of contradiction and discrepancy as defined by Merriam-Webster and Oxford. #2 – An “incomplete” account that leaves out some details doesn’t mean that there’s a contradiction in accounts. Leaving out an animal in the entry of Jerusalem is an example.

For Herod and Quirinius – an obvious error was made; hwoever, the fact that two historical people that were contemporarites are mentioned doesn’t decrease the authority for me.

polonius.advice wrote:
Was Jesus crucified on the day before Passover (John) or on Passover (Matthew, Mark, Luke)?
The Passover is celebrated over several days, Dude, and the failure of prophecies to be fulfilled presupposes a canonical OT. We already know that there was no Jewish canon as such in Christ’s time.


RESPONSE: But the Passover meal is only eaten once on the eve of the Passover. According to John, Jesus was already dead. Also note that there is no mention of the institution of the Eucharist in John's gospel. According to the other three Gospels, that took place a the Passover meal. Hence it's institution is absent in John's account which reported the Last Supper to be before the Passover.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version