Belief in Santa Claus vs belief in God (an apology from domatron23)

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Nevermind that about ten percent of people knew how to read and write back then (making us lucky that anything was recorded at all), and the earliest Gospel was written no more than ninety years after Christ's death.

SpaceMoose

Okay, so out of those 10 percent, and that number is according to you, there is only one written work that documents these supposed events, and it happens to be a religious text, a text which can't even agree with itself on something as simple as what Jesus' dying words were, I might add. This is a text that, and I'm just talking about the New Testament here, doesn't keep much of a "record" of anything that is not somehow religiously related. Well, that's convenient. Last I checked 10 percent of a lot of people is still a lot of people... And okay, ninety years then by your account...and that is for the earliest. That doesn't really change my overall point any.

Dracargen, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the 1st Gospel was written in 120 A.D?

spacemoose, the resurrection is attested in 7 works by 4 authors. the Pauline epistles attest to the resurrection, Acts of the Apostles attests to it, and all 4 Gospels, 2 of which were authored by eye-witnesses (Matthew and John) and the other 2 of which had eye-witnesses as their sources (Luke probably recieved his information fro Paul, Peter, and James, and Mark recieved his information from Peter), agree on this.

So which of those isn't part of the Bible again?

explain why being canonized make a document unreliable. fanofazrienoch

Being filled with nonsensical and supernatural events that contradict anything that is actually observable makes a document unreliable.

in which part did you explain why being put into the new testament makes a document useless as a historical source?fanofazrienoch

because the writers may have been biased in favor of Jesus being divine (since they did believe in him). it's like asking a Nazi to write a book on Hitler or asking the spokesman of a company which product he prefers. they're both going to choose the one that furthers their interests best.

in which part did you explain why being put into the new testament makes a document useless as a historical source?fanofazrienoch

I said there is only one historical "source," and it is convenient that it also happens to be a text that is the basis of a religion. I asked for another source. I can find written text for Hinduism too, and actually it has several books, so I guess that makes it even more valid.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

explain why being canonized make a document unreliable. SpaceMoose

Being filled with nonsensical and supernatural events that contradict anything that is actually observable makes a document unreliable.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] in which part did you explain why being put into the new testament makes a document useless as a historical source?Hewkii

because the writers may have been biased in favor of Jesus being divine (since they did believe in him). it's like asking a Nazi to write a book on Hitler or asking the spokesman of a company which product he prefers. they're both going to choose the one that furthers their interests best.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

in which part did you explain why being put into the new testament makes a document useless as a historical source?SpaceMoose

I said there is only one historical "source," and it is convenient that it also happens to be a text that is the basis of a religion. I asked for another source. I can find written text for Hinduism too, and actually it has several books, so I guess that makes it even more valid.

and how many books does hinduism have describing events? who were the authors of these books? did they see the events? did they have eye-witnesses as their sources?

and that is called appeal to motives, and this is a fallacy. you have no evidence for their unreliability other than the possible motives that the authors had. fanofazrienoch

correct. but at the same time, you have no proof that as believers they wouldn't make Jesus seem more God-like then he may have actually been.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]and that is called appeal to motives, and this is a fallacy. you have no evidence for their unreliability other than the possible motives that the authors had. Hewkii

correct. but at the same time, you have no proof that as believers they wouldn't make Jesus seem more God-like then he may have actually been.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Nevermind that about ten percent of people knew how to read and write back then (making us lucky that anything was recorded at all), and the earliest Gospel was written no more than ninety years after Christ's death.

SpaceMoose

Okay, so out of those 10 percent, and that number is according to you, there is only one written work that documents these supposed events, and it happens to be a religious text, a text which can't even agree with itself on something as simple as what Jesus' dying words were, I might add. This is a text that, and I'm just talking about the New Testament here, doesn't keep much of a "record" of anything that is not somehow religiously related. Well, that's convenient. Last I checked 10 percent of a lot of people is still a lot of people... And okay, ninety years then by your account...and that is for the earliest. That doesn't really change my overall point any.

There are 4 Canonized Gospels. What you don't seem to understand is that

1. The fact that they are religious doesn't automatically make them wrong, and

2. The Bible is not one text, but sixty-six.

As for "not agreeing with itself" on Christ's last words, http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm#075

Also, ask Mr_sprinkles (who brought up these exact same "contradictions" yesterday) for more.

The New Testament doesn't keep a record of much that isn't religious related? No kidding? The Bible doesn't say much that isn't about God?:|

Ten percent of a lot of people. . . .what do you know of ancient history? In Jerusalem, the main (in fact, the only trusted) method of communication was ORAL communication. Few things were written down.

Finally, ninety years is not a long time.;) in fact, it's even enough to qualify the Gospel for a position as an eyewitness account. And I said it was written no MORE than ninety years after the death of Christ--it could have been written as little as thirty years afterward, and even if it doesn't, there aren't any documents written until long after the life of Socrates, yet he is considered to have existed.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

explain why being canonized make a document unreliable. fanofazrienoch

Being filled with nonsensical and supernatural events that contradict anything that is actually observable makes a document unreliable.

Have you ever seen a "miracle" on the scale of anything in the Bible yourself? If not, why not?

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Nevermind that about ten percent of people knew how to read and write back then (making us lucky that anything was recorded at all), and the earliest Gospel was written no more than ninety years after Christ's death.

Dracargen

Okay, so out of those 10 percent, and that number is according to you, there is only one written work that documents these supposed events, and it happens to be a religious text, a text which can't even agree with itself on something as simple as what Jesus' dying words were, I might add. This is a text that, and I'm just talking about the New Testament here, doesn't keep much of a "record" of anything that is not somehow religiously related. Well, that's convenient. Last I checked 10 percent of a lot of people is still a lot of people... And okay, ninety years then by your account...and that is for the earliest. That doesn't really change my overall point any.

There are 4 Canonized Gospels. What you don't seem to understand is that

1. The fact that they are religious doesn't automatically make them wrong, and

2. The Bible is not one text, but sixty-six.

As for "not agreeing with itself" on Christ's last words, http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm#075

Also, ask Mr_sprinkles (who brought up these exact same "contradictions" yesterday) for more.

The New Testament doesn't keep a record of much that isn't religious related? No kidding? The Bible doesn't say much that isn't about God?:|

Ten percent of a lot of people. . . .what do you know of ancient history? In Jerusalem, the main (in fact, the only trusted) method of communication was ORAL communication. Few things were written down.

Finally, ninety years is not a long time.;) in fact, it's even enough to qualify the Gospel for a position as an eyewitness account. And I said it was written no MORE than ninety years after the death of Christ--it could have been written as little as thirty years afterward, and even if it doesn't, there aren't any documents written until long after the life of Socrates, yet he is considered to have existed.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

explain why being canonized make a document unreliable. SpaceMoose

Being filled with nonsensical and supernatural events that contradict anything that is actually observable makes a document unreliable.

Have you ever seen a "miracle" on the scale of anything in the Bible yourself? If not, why not?

and therefore the Gospels are useless as history? 2 of them were written by eye-witnesses. for ancient history, that's the absolute best source we can have.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

in which part did you explain why being put into the new testament makes a document useless as a historical source?fanofazrienoch

I said there is only one historical "source," and it is convenient that it also happens to be a text that is the basis of a religion. I asked for another source. I can find written text for Hinduism too, and actually it has several books, so I guess that makes it even more valid.

and how many books does hinduism have describing events? who were the authors of these books? did they see the events? did they have eye-witnesses as their sources?

How do you know those are the people that wrote it?

Dracargen, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the 1st Gospel was written in 120 A.D?

fanofazrienoch

The Church father Ignatius quoted the first Gospel (Matthew) around the year A.D. 110. It may have been even earlier (by as much as fifteen years) but I was giving some slack.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

Dracargen, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the 1st Gospel was written in 120 A.D?

Dracargen

The Church father Ignatius quoted the first Gospel (Matthew) around the year A.D. 110. It may have been even earlier (by as much as fifteen years) but I was giving some slack.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

Dracargen, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the 1st Gospel was written in 120 A.D?

Dracargen

The Church father Ignatius quoted the first Gospel (Matthew) around the year A.D. 110. It may have been even earlier (by as much as fifteen years) but I was giving some slack.

Generally they are regarded as written between 65 - 100 AD.

so because I have not seen them myself, therefore they never happened?

and therefore the Gospels are useless as history? 2 of them were written by eye-witnesses. for ancient history, that's the absolute best source we can have.

fanofazrienoch

Clearly I am getting nowhere here. Let me try this approach:

What is the reason that non-Christian historians do not use the New Testament as a record of history? Why are the "miracles" of the Bible not in history books or encyclopedias? (other than to describe Christianity, obviously) Surely, there must be a reason.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

in which part did you explain why being put into the new testament makes a document useless as a historical source?SpaceMoose

I said there is only one historical "source," and it is convenient that it also happens to be a text that is the basis of a religion. I asked for another source. I can find written text for Hinduism too, and actually it has several books, so I guess that makes it even more valid.

and how many books does hinduism have describing events? who were the authors of these books? did they see the events? did they have eye-witnesses as their sources?

How do you know those are the people that wrote it?

no one ever attests these gospels to another author for 3 centuries when someone attests the Gospel of John to a gnostic author. but gnostics did not believe in the resurrection or the crucifixion or the resurrection, and the author of John demonstrates a detailed knowledge of Jerusalem and Palestine in the 1st century prior to the destruction of Herod's temple. This intimate knowledge clearly indicates that the author was an eye-witness, and all the early church fathers agree that this author was John, son of Zebedee.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

so because I have not seen them myself, therefore they never happened?

and therefore the Gospels are useless as history? 2 of them were written by eye-witnesses. for ancient history, that's the absolute best source we can have.

SpaceMoose

Clearly I am getting nowhere here. Let me try this approach:

What is the reason that non-Christian historians do not use the New Testament as a record of history? Why are the "miracles" of the Bible not in history books or encyclopedias? (other than to describe Christianity, obviously) Surely, there must be a reason.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

so because I have not seen them myself, therefore they never happened?

and therefore the Gospels are useless as history? 2 of them were written by eye-witnesses. for ancient history, that's the absolute best source we can have.

SpaceMoose

Clearly I am getting nowhere here. Let me try this approach:

What is the reason that non-Christian historians do not use the New Testament as a record of history? Why are the "miracles" of the Bible not in history books or encyclopedias? (other than to describe Christianity, obviously) Surely, there must be a reason.

Which history book gives us the daily lives of the Jewish people?

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html

spacemoose and hewkii, I'd highly recommend that you read this essay written by Dr. Gary Habermas. in this essay, Habermas discusses why the New Testament is most likely a reliable historical text.

dracargen, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the 1st gospel was written in the 2nd century?fanofazrienoch

I'm reading it from the introduction to the Gospel of Matthew in my Apologetics Study Bible. It was written by Alan Hultberg.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

so because I have not seen them myself, therefore they never happened?

and therefore the Gospels are useless as history? 2 of them were written by eye-witnesses. for ancient history, that's the absolute best source we can have.

fanofazrienoch

Clearly I am getting nowhere here. Let me try this approach:

What is the reason that non-Christian historians do not use the New Testament as a record of history? Why are the "miracles" of the Bible not in history books or encyclopedias? (other than to describe Christianity, obviously) Surely, there must be a reason.

Fallacy: You make assumptions about them being "eyewitnesses", etc. Based on what? Historians? You can't have it both ways, sir.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] dracargen, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the 1st gospel was written in the 2nd century?Dracargen

I'm reading it from the introduction to the Gospel of Matthew in my Apologetics Study Bible. It was written by Alan Hultberg.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

so because I have not seen them myself, therefore they never happened?

and therefore the Gospels are useless as history? 2 of them were written by eye-witnesses. for ancient history, that's the absolute best source we can have.

SpaceMoose

Clearly I am getting nowhere here. Let me try this approach:

What is the reason that non-Christian historians do not use the New Testament as a record of history? Why are the "miracles" of the Bible not in history books or encyclopedias? (other than to describe Christianity, obviously) Surely, there must be a reason.

Fallacy: You make assumptions about them being "eyewitnesses", etc. Based on what? Historians? You can't have it both ways, sir.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

fanofazrienoch

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] dracargen, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the 1st gospel was written in the 2nd century?fanofazrienoch

I'm reading it from the introduction to the Gospel of Matthew in my Apologetics Study Bible. It was written by Alan Hultberg.

It is awesome.

I got the genuine leather.:D

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]and that is called appeal to motives, and this is a fallacy. you have no evidence for their unreliability other than the possible motives that the authors had. fanofazrienoch

correct. but at the same time, you have no proof that as believers they wouldn't make Jesus seem more God-like then he may have actually been.

I'm not getting this. In science, if a scientist presents a hypothesis, he has to test it and prove it himself. It's not up to the rest of the scientific community to disprove it. In this instance, you're claiming that the New Testament is a legitimate historical document, yet have provided nothing to support your case. What exactly makes you exempt of this burden? It's your claim, so back it up.

If I told you I could fly, wouldn't you expect me to flap my arms and get off the ground?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

SpaceMoose

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

BTW, regarding the scholarly consensus on the resurrection, scholarship is split on this matter.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Hewkii"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]and that is called appeal to motives, and this is a fallacy. you have no evidence for their unreliability other than the possible motives that the authors had. Gamer556

correct. but at the same time, you have no proof that as believers they wouldn't make Jesus seem more God-like then he may have actually been.

I'm not getting this. In science, if a scientist presents a hypothesis, he has to test it and prove it himself. It's not up to the rest of the scientific community to disprove it. In this instance, you're claiming that the New Testament is a legitimate historical document, yet have provided nothing to support your case. What exactly makes you exempt of this burden? It's your claim, so back it up.

If I told you I could fly, wouldn't you expect me to flap my arms and get off the ground?

but regardless, the Gospels are reliable because they either were written by eye-witnesses, or the authors had eye-witnesses as their sources.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

fanofazrienoch

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

BTW, regarding the scholarly consensus on the resurrection, scholarship is split on this matter.

If it isn't used for the sole purpose of describing Christianity, it would never be used.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

Gamer556

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

BTW, regarding the scholarly consensus on the resurrection, scholarship is split on this matter.

If it isn't used for the sole purpose of describing Christianity, it would never be used.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

SpaceMoose

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

Lee Strobel

Gary Habermas (if you watch no other video, watch this one)

Paul Copan

And there are so many others.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

Dracargen

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

Lee Strobel

Gary Habermas (if you watch no other video, watch this one)

Paul Copan

And there are so many others.

[QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

fanofazrienoch

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

BTW, regarding the scholarly consensus on the resurrection, scholarship is split on this matter.

If it isn't used for the sole purpose of describing Christianity, it would never be used.

The Gospels were written for the sole purpose of praising Christ, and the authors present biased viewpoints. They cannot be used as historical documents, period.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

Gamer556

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

BTW, regarding the scholarly consensus on the resurrection, scholarship is split on this matter.

If it isn't used for the sole purpose of describing Christianity, it would never be used.

The Gospels were written for the sole purpose of praising Christ, and the authors present biased viewpoints. They cannot be used as historical documents, period.

The Gospels were written for the sole purpose of praising Christ, and the authors present biased viewpoints. They cannot be used as historical documents, period.

Gamer556

If they were written "for the sole purpose of praising Christ," then don't you think they would have been written BEFORE His death?:|

From the Copan article:

"Treat the Gospels just like you would any other historical document. Subject it to the same criteria. Treat it just like Caesar's Gallic Wars, Josephus' Jewish Wars, or Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome. If you accept them as generally accurate, on what basis would you discount the reliability of the Gospels?"

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

fanofazrienoch

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

Lee Strobel

Gary Habermas (if you watch no other video, watch this one)

Paul Copan

And there are so many others.

Allow me to refer you to the definition of "generally."

Whatever, I don't feel like arguing with silly claims about fairy tales all night, so let's just say I'll believe in all that stuff when God comes down himself and tells me it's all true. But apparently he would rather turn it all into some elaborate mind game just for the hell of it. Okay. Time to go do something that is slightly less a complete waste of time.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

SpaceMoose

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

Lee Strobel

Gary Habermas (if you watch no other video, watch this one)

Paul Copan

And there are so many others.

Allow me to refer you to the definition of "generally."

Whatever, I don't feel like arguing with silly claims about fairy tales all night, so let's just say I'll believe in all that stuff when God comes down himself and tells me it's all true. But apparently he would rather turn it all into some elaborate mind game just for the hell of it. Okay. Time to go do something that is slightly less a complete waste of time.

Allow me to refer you to the definition of "generally."

Whatever, I don't feel like arguing with silly claims about fairy tales all night, so let's just say I'll believe in all that stuff when God comes down himself and tells me it's all true. But apparently he would rather turn it all into some elaborate mind game just for the hell of it. Okay. Time to go do something that is slightly less a complete waste of time.

SpaceMoose

And the inevitable conclusion:

"Well, you're wrong, it's a fairy tale, God didn't show himself to me, so he doesn't exist, you're stupid, I don't have time for this, my head hurts, I'm tired, whatever."

Allow me to refer you to the bandwagon fallacy.

[QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

fanofazrienoch

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

BTW, regarding the scholarly consensus on the resurrection, scholarship is split on this matter.

If it isn't used for the sole purpose of describing Christianity, it would never be used.

The Gospels were written for the sole purpose of praising Christ, and the authors present biased viewpoints. They cannot be used as historical documents, period.

That doesn't change the fact that they are biased accounts.

The Gospels may be considered the biographies of Jesus, but they are also the tools of spreading Christianity. They serve a purpose beyond the recording of facts.

I wouldn't reference the Bible on the history of Jesus for the same reasons I wouldn't reference Hitler on the nature of the Jewish people. You may get answers, but not necessarily the right ones.

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]

The Gospels were written for the sole purpose of praising Christ, and the authors present biased viewpoints. They cannot be used as historical documents, period.

Dracargen

If they were written "for the sole purpose of praising Christ," then don't you think they would have been written BEFORE His death?:|

From the Copan article:

"Treat the Gospels just like you would any other historical document. Subject it to the same criteria. Treat it just like Caesar's Gallic Wars, Josephus' Jewish Wars, or Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome. If you accept them as generally accurate, on what basis would you discount the reliability of the Gospels?"

How ofter are supernatural events being mentioned in Tacitus? Tell us how "Annals" of imperial Rome, a book devoted to giving an insight into Roman events and political scene, can be likened to the gospels which tell us a man walked on water, turned water into wine, and cured the sick.

Well I guess we might as well take the Iliad, Odysee and Epics of Gilgmesh just as seriously as the gospels then too.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

I am using evidence that these were authored by eye-witnesses.

you're just saying "well these modern authors of history books and encyclopedias didn't say that Jesus' miracles were true therefore they didn't happen"

Gamer556

I see you make a bunch of claims, but you don't tell me where you got this supposed "evidence." Your contention is essentially that the Bible is just as reliable a historical text as anything else. So I then asked why it is generally not considered to be so by people who actually have more than a casual understanding of historical records. You failed to provide a sufficient answer.

BTW, regarding the scholarly consensus on the resurrection, scholarship is split on this matter.

If it isn't used for the sole purpose of describing Christianity, it would never be used.

The Gospels were written for the sole purpose of praising Christ, and the authors present biased viewpoints. They cannot be used as historical documents, period.

That doesn't change the fact that they are biased accounts.

The Gospels may be considered the biographies of Jesus, but they are also the tools of spreading Christianity. They serve a purpose beyond the recording of facts.

I wouldn't reference the Bible on the history of Jesus for the same reasons I wouldn't reference Hitler on the nature of the Jewish people. You may get answers, but not necessarily the right ones.

and again, appeal to motives. this is a FALLACY. and their purpose was to record the life of Jesus. People later used them to spread christianity because. but regardless, your objections are completely unwarranted and unfounded in the historical method.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Gamer556"]

The Gospels were written for the sole purpose of praising Christ, and the authors present biased viewpoints. They cannot be used as historical documents, period.

Donkey_Puncher

If they were written "for the sole purpose of praising Christ," then don't you think they would have been written BEFORE His death?:|

From the Copan article:

"Treat the Gospels just like you would any other historical document. Subject it to the same criteria. Treat it just like Caesar's Gallic Wars, Josephus' Jewish Wars, or Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome. If you accept them as generally accurate, on what basis would you discount the reliability of the Gospels?"

How ofter are supernatural events being mentioned in Tacitus? Tell us how "Annals" of imperial Rome, a book devoted to giving an insight into Roman events and political scene, can be likened to the gospels which tell us a man walked on water, turned water into wine, and cured the sick.

Well I guess we might as well take the Iliad, Odysee and Epics of Gilgmesh just as seriously as the gospels then too.

also, dismissing the Gospels solely because they talk about miracles and supernatural events is a fallacy called begging the question.

[

How ofter are supernatural events being mentioned in Tacitus? Tell us how "Annals" of imperial Rome, a book devoted to giving an insight into Roman events and political scene, can be likened to the gospels which tell us a man walked on water, turned water into wine, and cured the sick.

Well I guess we might as well take the Iliad, Odysee and Epics of Gilgmesh just as seriously as the gospels then too.

Donkey_Puncher

You do not have to believe the miracles in the Gospels to accept them as historical fact.

By the way, could you explain why the New Testament has 5,600 original manuscripts, while the Iliad, the world's second-most accurately copied document known to man, has 643?