Amaleq13

If I thought you had reliable evidence that supported you, I might take your consideration of my opinion more seriously. As it stands, I'm not terribly concerned that your faith results in rejection of my claims.

Support your assertion. I'll even give you a break and you can just support your assertion as it relates to the Gospel resurrection stories.

You are misinformed. Catholic scholar, John Meier, accepts that the Gospels are originally anonymous documents produced by late 1st century Christian communities and acknowledges that attempting to identify reliable history in these stories is not a simple task. He writes under the official sanction of the Catholic Church, James. Another officially authorized example of Church-approved scholarship, The Catholic Study Bible, also acknowledges the problems with supporting the traditional attributions of authorship and goes so far as to acknowledge that Matthew, given a clear reliance upon Mark, cannot be reasonably assumed to have been written by an actual eyewitness.

That is demonstrably false. Your first post in this thread was an assertion:
And you have continued to make related assertions ever since.

I don't know how I can be more explicit than the question I've already asked, Jim.

That isn't exactly what I'm asking you to support. Please read my question carefully as you research your answer. Please also provide specific references as well. Not just the website but the original texts referenced.

Jack the Bodiless

Geographical errors seem to be pretty clear-cut proof of a non-local origin of the gospels to me.

And from what I've seen so far, counter-evidence from apologists is likely to be more of "this Biblical place actually existed, Pilate was a real person..." and so forth. You don't seem to understand that nobody here has ever claimed that every single claim made in the Bible is 100% false.
...Which appears to demonstrate my point, not yours!

Yes, history shows us, over and over again, that some people (especially theists) are prepared to die because of what they have read, or have been told. It is not necessary for such people to be eyewitnesses, nor is their fanaticism contingent on the actual truth or falsehood of what they've read or been told.

You need to provide good evidence that numerous originators of the religion (those in a position to know whether it's true or not) voluntarily died for their beliefs. It's interesting to note that the best candidate you can provide for a genuine Christian martyr is Paul, who according to Christian tradition was never an eyewitness to the resurrection: I think it's entirely plausible that Paul was simply insane (delusional).

Others MAY have died because they believed Paul. Again, there are plenty of non-Christian examples (the Heaven's Gate cultists etc).
Again, no such confirmation exists for the important details of the story.
...And which "New Testament Record" would that be?

You seem to have forgotten about all the dozens of documents (including entire gospels) discarded from the canon because they didn't fit the desired coherent picture. And more are being found (e.g. Nag Hammadi, which was certainly within "the last 100 years").
I'm sorry, but you seem to be posting from a parallel Universe here.
All we know from this is that the author of Acts ceased narrating Paul's actions.
...Because of Luke's plagiarism, indicating that he wasn't an eyewitness.
The skeptical approach is the correct approach when determining whether or not there is adequate evidence: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For instance, it's not enough to imagine that a verse might be "prophetic": this must be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

Diogenes the Cynic

What is your source for this extraordinary claim? You seem to have historical documentation completely unknown to anyone else. Perhaps you're simply extropolating from Tacitus?
The Gospels had not yet been written while Nero was alive and outside of Tacitus (which is disputed), there is no evidence that Nero ever persecuted Christians.
Calling them "historical" is presuming your conclusion.
The Empty Tomb tradition did not exist in Christian tradition until Mark invented it at least 40 years after the alleged crucifixion.
What "thousands of people?" What "events" did they participate in? There is no evidence that thousands of people "witnessed" anything or became believers. Christianity was primarily a Gentile movement, not a Jewish one. The Gospels were written outside of Palestine to Gentiles and diasporic Jews who had witnessed nothing and were not alive during the alleged time of Jesus.
Could you elaborate on these "testing techniques?" Do these techniques have an explanation for all the contradictions, errors and manifest fictions in the Gospels?
This is a very bold assertion, now where are the facts to back it up. You can't win an argument just by saying something is true, you have to support it.
Yes it is. It is exactly reason's function to make assumptions about what is or is not physically possible. If an alleged event is impossible on its face, then the rational default is that it didn't happen. That default remains in effect until someone can prove otherwise. If you don't make assumptions about the basic laws of physics then you can't practice any sort of scientific method.
That leaves out the Gospels, then.
Nonsense. Assertions of the supernatural in themselves make a text untrustworthy. And in the case of the Gospels we have plenty more besides fantastic allegations to show unreliability.
Baloney. We may assume the impossible is impossible until proven otherwise. It is rational and even necessary to assume that dead people can't come back to life just like it must be assumed that Paul Bunyan didn't dig the Great Lakes.
What archeology and 1st century documents are you talking about? There is no such evidence whatsoever.
Yeah, you know you can never get bad information from those internets.
This is all false, and completely unsupported as well.
What new discoveries would those be?
What scholars would those be? I would actually argue that mythicism is starting to gain more currency and creep more and more into mainstream scholarship. Can you name a fornmerly "liberal" scholar who has become more conservative? I don't know of any.
"More consistent detail?" What does that even mean?
Completely false, and, again, a bald assertion unsupported by argument or evidence. If you're going to cut and paste from apologist websites, you should at least try to include some actual apologia. "The Bible is true!" is not an argument.
What "things?" I can't actually find any data in the above section only bald assertions.
What "things?" What "record of historical accuracy?" What "Messianic prophecies?" (Jesus certainly didn't fulfill the OT expectations for the Messiah). Early church growth? So what?
No evidence exists for this and it wouldn't prove anything anyway.
What extra-Biblical sources?
No we don't. None of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses. This is a provable fact. None of them even claim to have been written by eyewitness.
No we don't.
Acts could not have been written before the mid 90's. Luke uses Josephus as a source.
It actually means that GLuke couldn't have been written earlier than the mid-90's (and probably later) and that Acts was written even later than that.
Mark knows about the destruction of the Temple which puts it at 70 CE at a minimum.
Four.
You should read Doherty's work on Paul to get an idea of how the Pauline corpus can be argued to be referring to a purely spiritual and symbolic Christ figure rather than a historical one. Paul shows virtually no awarenes of Jesus as a historical person. He doesn't know about such fundamental details as the Empty Tomb or the Virgin Birth. He doesn't actually tell a single anecdote from Jesus' life, mention a single miracle other than the resurrection and never quotes him even when it would serve his purpose tremendously to do so. His appearance chronology contradicts all four of the Canonical Gospels (which also contradict each other). His mentions of Cephas (not Peter) do not actually connect that name to a concrete historical Jesus. He says that Cephas was the first to see the risen Christ (contradicting the Gospels) but Doherty argues that this was a spiritual event for Paul, not a physical resurrection of a real person. Paul's mention of "James, the bother of the Lord" is more problematic but Doherty argues that the Greek word adelfos was commonly used simply to designate Christians and that James' title probably signified his position as head of the Jerusalem cult rather than a literal sibling relationship. Doherty's argument is fleshed out here (scroll down a tad to the bolded part) but even if James was to be accepted as the literal sibling of HJ, that does not prove that there was a physical resurrection or that Cephas or James ever claimed such a thing. At the very most, you might have a couple of dudes who claimed to have "seen" jesus after the crucfixion, but there are any number of symbolic/allegorical/spiritual/hallucinatory ways that such a claim can be read. The Empty Tomb story didn't exist yet.
Such as?

Jim Larmore

Well guy its like this, if you can't and don't see the Bible is basically a historical account of ancient peoples and nations from Noah to Abraham to Moses and the children of Isreal to the New Testament account of the life of Christ, then theres nothing else I can say to convince you. Its like argueing with you over the color purple. I see it as purple and so does a lot of other folks but you may see it as an off shade of blue or red or brown because of your perspective color blindness.


Well have you read any of the commentaries of Dr. Gary E. LaMore? He also caries the official sanction of the Roman Catholic Church.

I haven't been preaching, and I certainly haven't been witnessing. Get specific with what you mean here. I am providing evidencial support for what I am talking about.

That'll take a lot more time to look up. I have pasted a part of some narrative to support what I am saying , you want me to go and research their research now? I would think you should be the one to do that.

Wads4

Oh yes "the Omega point",-Teilhard de Chardin I believe. Did you not read his savaging and dismemberment by the biologist Sir Peter Medewar?
As for standing outside of time: this is a misinterpretation of QM: also something cannot stand outside of time. Anything that stands, or does anything at all, is occupying space-time. A being cannot be outside of time and exist,-especially move around and do active things like creating Universes. Did not God take 6 days over creation?- -that sounds like a lot of time being used up by him,-or is Genesis wrong? It is easy to say the words,-never mind that they don't actually mean anything.

Jim Larmore

I got it off the internet while doing a search on Biblical Historical Accuracy.

Now you need to support your bold assertion.

Then why is it even mentioned in the gospels then? Theres an account of the empty tomb in every gospel. Like I said just because it wasn't written about earlier is not proof of its being false.
Are you saying theres no evidence that thousands of people lived in and around Jerusalm during this time? I mean I don't know what you want here.
Wow, what a wild and unsupportred assertion this is. The first christians were very much Jews, what nationality do you think the apostles were anyhow? The message of christianity didn't go to the Gentiles until after the stoning of Stephen.

Do a google on archeology of the Bible and stay away from skeptical views and you'll find out.

Man I would hate to have you on a jury hearing my case. You want to convict before you even get all of the evidence. How do you know its physically impossible just because you have never seen it?

This is such a typical critics response.
Or I got another one , yeah, I honestly believe that dead inanimate lifeless inorganic mud came to life over a billion years of undirected happen stance accidents and formed a cell that miraculously survived to divide and viola we have all the diversity of life on our planet. Sure this is very possible and even inevitable, sure
And I thought you were a scholar and knew something about Biblical history. Haven't you been keeping up with the recent finds in the middle east?
You said it man!!!
No its not false and the support is there if you want to accept it.
What new discoveries would those be?
Prove it then, I'm waiting.



So I guess you feel Paul was lying in 1Cor15:14 then huh? What a bunch of non-sensical jibberish. If it wasn't so sad it would actually be funny the way these critics take something apart like they do.

Toto

The only references to Gary E. LaMore I can find are to a fundamentalist King James only site: Dean Burgeon Society and to other Baptist sites. Care to give a reference?

Amaleq13

Establishing the historical accuracy of a given text or group of texts is not an entirely subjective matter as you suggest here though I agree that your attempts to defend your assertion have largely relied on your own subjectively beliefs.

Which book of his should I consult to confirm this claim? You can find the official Catholic Church Imprimatur in the front of Meier's Jesus: A Marginal Jew as well as The Catholic Study Bible.

Like I said, I don't know how to be more specific than to ask:

"What evidence do you have that any apostles suffered and died because they believed the Gospel stories of the resurrection to be historically reliable?"

It is demonstrably false that you have provided "evidencial support" for your assertions. You've provided nothing, so far, except unsubstantiated assertions, faulty information, and faith-based conviction.

Repeating the same assertions from others does not constitute evidence supporting your assertions. You have to explain the factual basis for the asserted conclusions.

Again, let's keep it relevant to the OP: Defend your assertion that the Gospel resurrection stories should be accepted as reliable history.

Jim Larmore

I screwed up its not Dr.Gary LaMore its was David Armstrong. I have been reading way too much type lately. My Bad, sorry.

Diogenes the Cynic

The internet is not a source, it's a medium. I wanted to know what the actual historical documentation was for your claims.
Which assertion do you want me to support...that the Gospels were written after Nero or that there is no documenation outside of Tacitus that Nero persecuted Christians?

In answer to the first, Nero died in 68 CE and the first Gospel, Mark could not have been written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Matthew and Luke both copy Mark. Luke also knows Josephus which puts him into the 90's. John is the last Gospel written and is usually dated to about 100 CE.

In answer to the 2nd...it is your assertion that the evidence exists. You tell me what it is. All you have to do to prove me wrong is cite a single historical account outside of Tacitus that Nero persecuted Christians.
It's in the Gospels because Mark made it up and the others copied Mark. Please read Peter Kirby's excellent essay,The Case Against the Empty Tomb for a detailed argument.
You said "thousands of people participated in the events" described in the gospels. What events? You're assuming that those events occurred. If none of them occurred then there could not have been anyone to participate in them.
While Christianity may have had its germination in an obscure "Jesus" movement in Palestine, Pauline Christianity was essentially and overwhelmingly a Gentile phenomenon. The Gospels were written to Gentile audiences outside of Palestine in the wake of the diaspora. The Pauline movement operated entirely outside of Palestine and appealed to Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews. The fact that the definition of the Messiah was changed so drastically by the Evangelists and that the Septuagint was so freely plundered for decontextualized "prophecies" shows that the audience was assumed not to be knowledgeable about Jewish scripture and tradition (again, with some possible exceptions in Matthew) and could be easily "guided" with the David Koresh school of cut and paste exegesis.

If there were ever any apostles or direct followers of a Historical Jesus they would have been Jewish but they were not "Christians," in the Pauline sense, they were just a Jewish sect who followed a particular wisdom tradition (or perhaps a particular teacher).
You mean Google for Christian websites and avoid the scholarly ones? No thanks. I'd rather see your actual evidence please.
Something is physically impossible, by definition, if it violates the laws of physics. It's quite simple.
It's a rational, empirical response.
I suppose this is intended to be some sort of parody of evolutionary theory. This is neither the thread nor the forum for an evolution debate, but suffice it to say that nothing in the ToE requires supernatural intervention. By contrast, one of your two creation stories involves a magic sky god making a dude out of mud and blowing life into it. This story, unlike evolution, can definitely be proven to be false.
As a matter of fact I have. Surely you must be aware of the findings of finkestein and others which disprove wide swaths of the Hebrew Bible as being historical. Could you be so kind as to show me one bit of archaeology that bolsters the historicity of the Gospels? (I bet your websites all prattle about Ramsay, don't they?)
Bring on the support. I'm all ears...er...eyes.
I've made a rather extensive argument here against the Gospels being eywitness accounts.
It's not a question of whether Paul was "lying" (although he may have been deluded) it's a question of what he meant by "Jesus Christ" and what he meant by JC being "raised." Doherty's argument is that Paul was speaking of an otherworldly character and event, not an earthly or historical one.