‘Independent accounts’?

[Zzyzx]

.
An organization (called Roman Catholic or Southern Baptist Convention or Missouri Synod or Latter Day Saints or other) produces a book that includes letters or accounts that are written by its preachers or ‘prophets’ who may or may not know each other. A few writings among many are selected by a committee for inclusion in the church book describing supernatural events / ‘miracles’.

1. Can a book produced by the committee rationally be considered as being composed of independent / disconnected writing (that can be used to verify claims of one another)? OR, does the selection process ‘connect’ the writings by being chosen to reflect preferences of the committee in supporting certain points of view?

2. Can the letters be rationally regarded as independent / disconnected verification that the claimed events actually occurred?

3. If extensive paragraphs of the letters are word-for-word, is it rational to suspect that copying was involved (either from each other or from a common source)?

[bjs]

1. Can a book produced by the committee rationally be considered as being composed of independent / disconnected writing (that can be used to verify claims of one another)? OR, does the selection process ‘connect’ the writings by being chosen to reflect preferences of the committee in supporting certain points of view?

Both. The book may include independent sources, and it may reflect the beliefs of the committee that put it together. (Though if you are attempting to make an analogy about the Bible, then a “committee� analogy is not at all historically accurate.)

2. Can the letters be rationally regarded as independent / disconnected verification that the claimed events actually occurred?

It depends on what you mean by “verification.�

3. If extensive paragraphs of the letters are word-for-word, is it rational to suspect that copying was involved (either from each other or from a common source)?

Of course. If they also have lengthy sections that are entirely different from each other then it is also ration to suspect that they used some independent sources.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Kindly list the authors substantiating bible ‘miracle’ tales that are NOT tied to the Bible (or part of the Bible)

All of them my friend! How in the world could anyone sit down to write anything at all, with no idea, nor any concern at all about what they were writing at the time, being contained in a book, hundreds, and even thousands of years later, which they could not possibly have known anything about, and be said to be "tied to" that book?

Better yet, how in the world, can you have those who were clearly sitting down to write personal letters to audiences at the time, with no idea, or any concern as to whether anyone else would ever read these letters other than their original intended audience, and surely would have had no idea that these letters would be contained in a book they could not have known about, and be said to be "tied to" this book?

You do understand that for many, many years, we had all these writings, and then some, but we did not have a Bible. So then, at that point, how in the world could these writings that existed long before there was a Bible, be said to be "tied to" this Bible, that did not even exist?

With all this being fact, we have a number of writings which can only be "tied" together, because they have been contained in the same book, hundreds, and even thousands of years after they were written, while the authors would have had no idea, and would have been unconcerned about such a book.

So then, how can these authors be tied together other than, they were contained in the same book, of which they would have had no knowledge?

Are there ANY independent reports (not tied to the Bible or part of the Bible) of the ‘miracle’ stories and claims on which Christianity is based? Virgin birth? Resurrection? Casting demons into swine (and/or other ‘miracle tales’)?

Again, all these writings were written independently of each other, and the Bible. In other words, none of them could have possibly known anything at all about the Bible. So then, how in the world could the Bible, tie them together, as somehow being one source?

Are the writings to which you refer part of the Bible or are they not?

When all of them were written hundred, and even thousands of years before the Bible, and the authors had no way to know about a Bible, would they have then been considered tied together, and part of the Bible, that did not exist?

You are losing here, because these writings contained in the Bible, were written independently of each other, and if you claim they are somehow tied together, then you must demonstrate how they would be tied together, other than being contained in a book, they could not have possibly known about.

You do understand that before the Bible came along, all these writings would have been independent of each other. Moreover, there are many other writings that Christians were reading before the Bible came along, that were not included in the Bible. So, would these other writings that were not included be somehow tied to the Bible? Or, is it only when they are contained in the Bible, which they would have known nothing of?

The Bible is an anthology (a collection of literary works chosen by the compiler). Notice that the compiler selects works to be included. A selection process was evidently used by church officials to accept some writings for inclusion and reject others.

Okay? But what would this have to do with the authors, who could not have possibly known about this process? It is not like they had knowledge of the process, and what it would take to gain entry into this Bible, and attempting to be sure they met those qualifications.

Rather, as is plainly evident, many of these writings would simply be letters written to friends, and other audiences at the time, with no other concerns at all. So then, how in the world could a letter to a friend, with no other concerns, be considered, "tied to the Bible?"

A company brochure is produced from writings by salesmen that are selected by management to be included. Would anyone claim that the writings selected were not ‘tied together’?

GOOD GRIEF! Your argument is becoming self defeating! Salesmen in companies more than likely would love to be "selected by management to be included", and would aim to measure up to the standard. However, as demonstrated, the authors contained in the Bible, could not have possibly known about the Bible, or what it would take to qualify.

This is the whole point. One who is simply sitting down in order to write a letter to a friend, is certainly not thinking about anything other than attempting to communicate certain information to this friend.

Kindly cite verifiable evidence to support Christian claims that is independent of the Bible.

Here again, you are making an argument that simply does not make sense. There was a time, which would have been many, many years, when these writings were not contained in the Bible, which means at that point they could not have possibly been tied to the Bible, which would have been unknown at the time.

With this being the case, we have independent writings by different authors, who could not have been possibly tied to a book, which did not exist.

[Jagella]

1. Can a book produced by the committee rationally be considered as being composed of independent / disconnected writing (that can be used to verify claims of one another)? OR, does the selection process ‘connect’ the writings by being chosen to reflect preferences of the committee in supporting certain points of view?

I suppose the answer to this question depends on what you mean by "independent." Scholars often refer to different sources of information as being independent. If a single group of people attained information directly from an event they personally witnessed, then that group might be considered to be one independent source of information about that event. On the other hand, if the individuals in that group shared common beliefs about that event but never witnessed the event personally, then they would not be considered independent sources.

2. Can the letters be rationally regarded as independent / disconnected verification that the claimed events actually occurred?

If the claims in those different letters were made by people who personally witnessed an event, then yes, those letters would constitute independent sources of information.

3. If extensive paragraphs of the letters are word-for-word, is it rational to suspect that copying was involved (either from each other or from a common source)?

In all probability lengthy passages that are the same word-for-word in letters indicate copying, and copying is strong evidence that the letters are not independent sources of information.

Of course you are alluding to the synoptic gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I agree with scholars that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark because Matthew and Luke contain passages copied from Mark, and therefore the synoptic gospels do not constitute independent sources of information.

The problem of independence plagues almost all the evidence for Jesus. We don't know if the different sources for Jesus are truly independent. Tacitus, for example, is often cited as an extra-Biblical source of information for Jesus, but we don't know where he got that information. If he got it from Christians, then Tacitus is not an independent source of information about Jesus.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by Realworldjack]

With this being the case, we have independent writings by different authors, who could not have been possibly tied to a book, which did not exist.

Okay, so let's have it your way. Let's pretend we're in a certain year (you pick), and that this year I presume would have to be before the Bible as a volume was put together. Let's say...100AD? 110? 90?
So let's say I know nothing about Jesus or Christianity or Christianity's God. You sit me down and want to convince me of it. What do you pull to convince me about this Jesus fellow? Do you put all four gospels as we know them today in front of me? What can you tell me happened at the Last Supper for example?
If we were to do what I think you want, your case would become a lot harder, in that we can't start with the assumption that any gospel or other writing is accurate. If you were to, for example, attempt to convince me that Jesus had a last supper with his disciples, how would you go about doing that? Are you going to point to the four named Gospels, and then stay silent when I ask you who are the sources for these documents? None of the gospel authors give sources, not even the author of g.Luke. It would be supposition and/or inference on your part to insist that they are true, even when they give contradictory details, and even insane ones (such as the disciples all but drooling into their cups out of sheer lack of brain power when Jesus literally tells them who the traitor is).