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]

.

[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.

Notice that a Theist mentioned accuracy / inaccuracy of the Gospels. I do not pretend to know whether writings from 2000 years ago are accurate or not.

Do you?

Would that mean they got, say the resurrection wrong by an inaccuracy? That is a little bit of a far stretch.

See below about exaggeration, etc.

I guess you would have to show why they would be inaccurate

If I CLAIMED the Gospels were inaccurate I would be expected to show evidence. However, I ASK rather than claim.

If someone CLAIMS that the Gospels are accurate THEY have the burden of proof.

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.

If writers believe something is true is that assurance that it IS true?

They question is why did these authors write the Gospels, what are they accurate about, and what are they not accurate about?

I look forward to answers to those questions.

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?

I do not confine my thinking to dichotomies (“lying or telling the truth�). Instead I recognize that other alternatives exist. Lying denotes deliberate deception. If a person says / writes what they believe to be the truth, but what they say is NOT true and accurate, they are not lying but are mistaken.

If a person writes stories they are told by others they may be unaware that the stories are exaggerations, myths, legends, folklore – and are not literal truth. A writer who believes and records the stories (unaware that they are not accurate) is mistaken rather than lying.

I consider it wise to question the accuracy of ancient (or modern) writings – and to ask for verification from those who claim that they are accurate.

[Zzyzx]

.

What do you mean by “shown to be truthful and accurate?�

If I make a statement I am prepared to show that it is truthful and accurate – that is MY responsibility in reasoned and honorable debate or discussion. As an example, http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 106#812106

How do you “show� that a description of events in the life of an individual is truthful and accurate? On the surface the concept seems to be nonsense.

I do not attempt to “'show' that a description of events in the life of an individual is truthful and accurate�.

If someone claims to know that a description IS accurate THEY have the burden of proof – and I have NO suggestions how anyone should substantiate their claims. That is their problem, not mine. If they discover that they cannot support their claims it would be wise to retract the claim (or not make it in the first place).

Please pick a description of an event in the life of an individual from the ancient world show that it is truthful and accurate so that we can know what you are talking about.

Okay. Mohammad flew into heaven on a winged horse. The account is truthful and accurate because the Koran says so. [/sarcasm]

Notice the similarity of “proof� for tales about Jesus.

I do NOT defend ANY descriptions of events in the life of ANY individual from antiquity. Even relatively recent events I do not pretend to know exactly what happened – particularly if I did not observe them personally and have information only from other sources. For instance, I accept that JFK was assassinated but do not claim to know exactly what happened.

[polonius]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

What do you mean by “shown to be truthful and accurate?� How do you “show� that a description of events in the life of an individual is truthful and accurate? On the surface the concept seems to be nonsense.

Please pick a description of an event in the life of an individual from the ancient world show that it is truthful and accurate so that we can know what you are talking about.

RESPONSE:

Are you serious?

If so, lets start with this one.

On 15 March 44 BCE, the Roman dictator Julius Caesar was murdered. There are several accounts of this incident, but the most famous and probably most accurate is the one written by Caesar's biographer Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c.70-c.135), who seems to have had access to imperial archives and may have consulted eyewitness accounts.

The following fragment from his Lives of the Twelve Caesars ("Caesar"80-82) was translated by Joseph Gavorse.

http://www.livius.org/sources/content/s ... of-caesar/

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 10 by MadeNew]

But as far as I'm concerned it is perfectly obvious that there are millions of birds living fine all around us.

No they're not. As DI said, each one of those birds has to go out and look for food, or are you now to say that God delivers food to them on a silver platter? When those birds hunt, they are putting themselves at risk.

[MadeNew]

[Replying to post 10 by MadeNew]

But as far as I'm concerned it is perfectly obvious that there are millions of birds living fine all around us.

No they're not. As DI said, each one of those birds has to go out and look for food, or are you now to say that God delivers food to them on a silver platter? When those birds hunt, they are putting themselves at risk.

Without God there would be no food for them to eat. Im not going to continue to debate this, you say they are starving and not being fed, i say they are eating just fine... Disputing something like this isn't going to go anywhere, we believe God created all things, if God created all things, he is feeding these birds. The only reason they eat is because God has aloud this so there is food for them to eat. Telling me they got to go find their food, therefor no God, isn't worth a debate. And it surely isn't going to disprove the resurrection or something like that.

[bjs]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

What do you mean by “shown to be truthful and accurate?� How do you “show� that a description of events in the life of an individual is truthful and accurate? On the surface the concept seems to be nonsense.

Please pick a description of an event in the life of an individual from the ancient world show that it is truthful and accurate so that we can know what you are talking about.

RESPONSE:

Are you serious?

If so, lets start with this one.

On 15 March 44 BCE, the Roman dictator Julius Caesar was murdered. There are several accounts of this incident, but the most famous and probably most accurate is the one written by Caesar's biographer Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c.70-c.135), who seems to have had access to imperial archives and may have consulted eyewitness accounts.

The following fragment from his Lives of the Twelve Caesars ("Caesar"80-82) was translated by Joseph Gavorse.

http://www.livius.org/sources/content/s ... of-caesar/

Of course I am serious. I need to know what the standard is if it is to be met.

What you have provided is a fine standard. It is a completely reasonable way to approach history, and it is the approach that the overwhelming majority and professional historians and all other people take. We have someone who was not an eyewitness to the events writing several years later who seems to have looked at the existing records and written an ordered account of what happened. I cannot imagine why any reasonable person would not accept this as having been “shown� to be true.

We can apply the same standard to the Gospels. For instance we have the Gospel of Luke, which was written by someone who was not an eyewitness to the events writing several years later who seems have looked at existing records and spoken with knowledge people to write an ordered account of what happened. I cannot imagine why any reasonable person would not accept this as having been “shown� to be true.

Now, if your current worldview does not allow for the existence of God then you will have to edit out events which require belief in the supernatural. On the other hand, if you happen to believe in the God that Jesus spoke about then you take the Gospels pretty much at face value.

However, the tone of the opening post suggests the Z would not accept your account about Julius Caesar’s death as being “shown� to be true. If I am wrong about that, then perhaps someone can show me a consistent approach to history that accepts Tranquillus while rejecting Luke.

[liamconnor]

.
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?

Way too general.

I don't know the context of the quote given. If he is a fundamentalist, then your question is very pertinent. But the quote itself suggests he is not. In which case, your question is way too broad and might be considered by others as "distorting".

By your understanding of the quote, was the person claiming that zero elements in the Bible can be shown by modern historiographical practices to be probable?

In other words, was he adopted a "blind fideism" approach? Surprising, since his very quote suggests not.


Or was he merely rejecting "inerrancy" which numerous (all??) Christians on this site have rejected?


If the latter (which is more probable), are you not imposing on him a version of Christianity which he does not hold---i.e., presenting a straw-man?

[rikuoamero]

[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.

[polonius]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

What do you mean by “shown to be truthful and accurate?� How do you “show� that a description of events in the life of an individual is truthful and accurate? On the surface the concept seems to be nonsense.

Please pick a description of an event in the life of an individual from the ancient world show that it is truthful and accurate so that we can know what you are talking about.

RESPONSE:

Are you serious?

If so, lets start with this one.

On 15 March 44 BCE, the Roman dictator Julius Caesar was murdered. There are several accounts of this incident, but the most famous and probably most accurate is the one written by Caesar's biographer Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c.70-c.135), who seems to have had access to imperial archives and may have consulted eyewitness accounts.

The following fragment from his Lives of the Twelve Caesars ("Caesar"80-82) was translated by Joseph Gavorse.

http://www.livius.org/sources/content/s ... of-caesar/

Of course I am serious. I need to know what the standard is if it is to be met.

What you have provided is a fine standard. It is a completely reasonable way to approach history, and it is the approach that the overwhelming majority and professional historians and all other people take. We have someone who was not an eyewitness to the events writing several years later who seems to have looked at the existing records and written an ordered account of what happened. I cannot imagine why any reasonable person would not accept this as having been “shown� to be true.

We can apply the same standard to the Gospels. For instance we have the Gospel of Luke, which was written by someone who was not an eyewitness to the events writing several years later who seems have looked at existing records and spoken with knowledge people to write an ordered account of what happened. I cannot imagine why any reasonable person would not accept this as having been “shown� to be true.

Now, if your current worldview does not allow for the existence of God then you will have to edit out events which require belief in the supernatural. On the other hand, if you happen to believe in the God that Jesus spoke about then you take the Gospels pretty much at face value.

However, the tone of the opening post suggests the Z would not accept your account about Julius Caesar’s death as being “shown� to be true. If I am wrong about that, then perhaps someone can show me a consistent approach to history that accepts Tranquillus while rejecting Luke.

RESPONSE: If writings contain contradictions regarding the same matter reported, then not all accounts are historical. For example, did Jesus send for and simultaneously ride two animals of different sizes when entering Jerusalem (according to Matthew) or send for an ride one animal (according Mark Luke, and John)?

[rspielmann]

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