Sensei Meela

...because the Gospels say he said X, Y and Z. You have no evidence to prove that he did not say X, Y and Z"

so, nyyahh!

This is the argument posed to me on another message board by a member (cough*James Madison*cough) who promised he would join me, here, ("and become a regular") in order to discuss it. [a week on and still waiting, I'm afraid]

Because this member has so maligned me and will dismiss out-of-hand anything I say (simply because I have said it), I'm hoping to elicit some 'third party' responses. I defer to our resident experts.

I know how it is often viewed when a 'fight rolls in from off the streets,' like this, and I apologize for how juvenile this all must appear.

Sensei Meela

[Note: All appeals to refer to contemporary scholars have fallen on deaf (or defiant) ears. I've also expressed that this argument rests on the assumption that the Gospels are historically reliable (or accurate) documents, yet my opponent has posited that we must presume the honesty of the writers, so if you could take it from there...]

Vinnie

Probably one of Jesus best attested saying is one on divorce. Section 5b highligts problems with the very best saying we have and also the Lord's supper (5c).

This page refutes the notion of giving them the benefit of the doubt for Mark at least.

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/mark.html

spin

Unprovinenced documents are not able to be historically reliable. If you don't know where or when they came from, how can one test their value?

Imagine if you found a handwritten copy of Pinocchio, without title page, just the text, would you automatically accept it as gospel until proven otherwise? How could you prove it otherwise? You can't appeal to the fantastic in it as proof that it was fictional, can you? Well, you could on a pragmatic level, but ultimately you can't. You just have to put it aside as not containing usable content until someone could show its use.


spin