Chris Weimer

Reliable in what way?

Toto

I think you're not playing this straight. All historical documents need to be approached skeptically and examined for indicia of reliability. The gospels have none.

If we lose a lot of fantasy that we thought was history, so be it. There are a lot of wars that have been fought, and are still being fought, over fantasy history. We're better off without it.

Go back and read the threads that spin started on this very issue.

Toto

Chris - obviously, the question here is "reliable as a source of history."

The answer is: nothing.

Show me where I'm wrong.

Chris Weimer

Wrong, on both accounts. First, all ancient documents need to be examined critically, not skeptically. You can't build history on skepticism. There are certain things you can be skeptical of, but a general skepticism leads to a state of denial. You can deny anything. There's no real difference between your skepticism and moutainman's except in degree.

Circular reasoning. It comes off as fantasy without ever being critically accepted as so.

The truth comes out. Your motives are clear.

I have, actually, all three of those threads. I thought Ben Smith made a compelling case.

Chris Weimer

"Show me where I'm wrong." Typical creationist line. Why don't you show yourself where you're right?

Why don't you actually engage the question instead of piling on the garbage. I didn't ask reliable for what, I asked reliable in what way. Does show_me_mercy use reliable to mean that we should accept it as true? Or that it compares to other sources?

Why did you never answer my post citing peer-reviewed papers in fields not related to Biblical Studies showing full and well that tradition can have a legitimate claim?

Toto

Your critical is my skeptical. How does reading the gospels critically give you any reason to trust them as historical sources?

No Chris - I'm talking about documented historical fantasies fueling nationalistic wars. We know that the Exodus didn't happen, but there are Jews acting as if God gave them a title deed to certain real estate, and Palestinians claiming victimhood status on the basis of the Exodus.

What motive? To avoid seeing people kill each other over stupidity? What's wrong with that?

Obviously we differ in our evaluation of the evidence. But there's no reason to act as if the question is unheard of.

Toto

Want to cool down a bit?

I've been around here since 2000 examining the issue of what history can be extracted from the gopsels and I've watched people who claim that it can be flounder around and finally yell out Michael Grant as if he had the secret. I've read him, he doesn't have any secrets. He just assumes that there is some history there.

You are the one issuing cryptic one liners that force other people to try to read your mind. What is the difference between "we should accept it as true" and "it compares to other sources?" The ultimate issue is the historical value. Or is there something else you think is implied there?


And I don't recall that post or the issue - do you want to link to it?

Chris Weimer

No, you'ew skeptical is certainly not my critical. And yes, I think many times over we've given reasons why should accept them as historical sources. Mostly related to tradition and genre. That they have never been satisfactorily explained by a mythicist position. That there is no motive for "fiction", since it didn't exist yet. The New Testament documents are just like every other ancient document. By virtue of what it contains, that it actually somewhat aligns with history, that we have various references to knowledge of the story by non-Christians, by Paul, by the underlayers of the Gospels exposing themselves - it's not skepticism that historians use to evaluate sources, it's criticism. It's understanding what the document is and what it can tell us, not merely trying to find excuses to not to see anything of worth in it.

People will always believe crazy things. If it doesn't come from some book, it comes from weird arguments about race (Nazi Germany), or political idealogy (Tibet and Taiwan under China).

Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Religions don't kill people; people kill people.

I was questioning your stance on the "impossibility" of it.

Chris Weimer

Responding directly to your question:

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4477293

Toto

I don't have access to JSTOR. If you want to send me copies of those articles, I will comment.