show_no_mercy

This much is clear. However, we don't know what the authors of the gospels intended since they are unknown to us. The names Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are simply 2nd century titles to these anonymous works.

aa5874

People quote from the Bible, do they have to prove the Bible is credible, first?

What you say it not really true.

I am not obligated to prove that the authors of the NT or the Church writers were credible in order to quote what is found written in their works.

I will continue to use sources of antiquity that support my position until other sources can be found that contradict my position.

If you think that any source of antiquity which I have used is not credible, then point out the source or the passage that lacks veracity or credibility otherwise what you say doesn't mean squat.

The Church writers claimed or implied that the Gospels, as found canonised, were historical or to be believed historical and the authors of the Gospels wrote that Jesus was on earth during the time of Tiberius and was on trial in the presence of Pilate, was later crucified and was buried by Joseph.

aa5874

Well, you must know the intentions of all the PAULINE WRITERS. The Pauline Epistles were all supposed to have been authored by PAUL.

What were the intention of the Pauls? And their real names and dates of authorship?

The information about Jesus found in the Epistles with the name Paul are all consistent with the Gospels that Jesus rose from the grave after being three days dead.

Until you can prove that the authors of the Epistles did not ever write or could not have possibly written that Jesus truly rose from the dead, after crucifixion, then I will use words found in the Epistles or sources of antiquity that show that the Gospels were written to be historical or believed to be historical.

J-D

You can't automatically assume that what people write is what they believe to be true. Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a story about a voyage to St Helena to free Napoleon, but he didn't believe there was such a voyage (in fact he knew perfectly well that there wasn't).

The majority view of Talmudic rabbis commenting on the issue was that Job was a real person. However, a minority held that there never was such a person and that his story was invented to illustrate a divine message. Neither view is evidence of what the original writer of the book intended, because that's something the Talmudic rabbis had no way of knowing.

aa5874

You seem not to understand the difference between authorship, veracity and credibility. It is not necessary to know who wrote any source of antiquity to quote what is found written.

Much of the names of the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls are unknown, the date of writing are not certain and the veracity and credibility of the authors cannot be verified yet people quote passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls to form an opinion on the non-historicity of Jesus.

I do not have to believe some source is true to quote what is written, and what is found in any writing is generally accepted to be from a single author unless it can be shown otherwise.

Why do you assume that you know what Conan Doyle wrote?

Now, you don't really know what Conan Doyle wrote, you simply accept that there was such a writer and that he wrote what was attributed to him, unless you intend to prove that everything found with the name Conan Doyle was actually written by him.

J-D

Anything written can be quoted. The question is, what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the fact that something was written? The fact alone that something was written, without further contextual information, is not evidence that it is true. Further contextual information may justify accepting it as evidence or may justify rejecting it. Again, the fact alone that something was written, without further contextual information, is not evidence that the person who wrote it believed it was true. Further contextual information may justify accepting it as evidence or may justify rejecting it. We know, for example, that fiction exists. If we have reason to believe that a document was written as fiction, that could be reason to doubt that a statement contained in it was believed by the writer to be true--although writers do incorporate some statements which they believe to be true into fictional work. If we have reason to believe that a document was written as non-fiction, then we have more justification for supposing that the statements contained in it were believed by the writer to be true--but again there are further qualifications to that principle. Each case must be considered on its merits.

Doug Shaver

That depends on what they're using the quote to prove. A quotation from the Bible can be evidence for what the quotation's author believed. It cannot be evidence that the author's belief was correct.

The same is true of nonbiblical documents. Many patristic writers obviously believed that the gospels were historically factual. It does not follow that the gospel authors actually intended to write history. The patristic writers could have been mistaken about the gospel authors' intentions, and I believe they were in fact mistaken.

aa5874

Exactly.

And I can make my own conclusion or change my position without your input. It is my conclusion, based on the sources of antiquity that I have read, that there is no doubt that the Gospels were written as historical or believed to be historical.

Exactly. And I have read sources of antiquity that lead me to the conclusion that the Gospels were written as historical or to be believed as historical.


Fiction exists in the spoken word or written statements. Fiction is not true.

So, you must agree that you really don't know what Conan Doyle wrote.

It is sometimes very difficult to really know what an author really believed if there is reason to think that the author was involved in deception or provided what appears to be deliberate mis-leading information.

It is my view that the authors of the NT and those who canonised the NT along with many of the Church writers, or people posing as Church writers, were involved in providing deliberate mis-leading information to the world expecting that the world would believe as historical their monstrous lies.

J-D

If you don't want to read what I'm writing, you don't have to. Nobody's forcing you. But whether you read or not I'm going to keep writing.

Everybody can reach their own conclusions, whatever the input, and any conclusion by anybody can be mistaken ...... and this particular conclusion of yours is mistaken, for reasons I have already explained.And possibly you had contextual information which justified the way you chose to treat your sources as evidence. We don't know because you haven't discussed it.No, I mustn't, for reasons I am happy to discuss if it will make any difference.Absolutely.That may be. What is the process by which you reached that view?

mountainman

Doesn't make what true - that he wrote the first christian history, or that this first history of christianity, which he wrote, is not necessarily true.

This is a figure of speech employed to make the case that Eusebius knew exactly what he was doing when he presented the four gospels as having been authored in the 1st century by the fabulous four on the floor - Matthew, Mark, CH Luke and Johnson. Scholarship and analysis of the facts has effectively ruled out the possibility of the apostolic authorship of the gospels. In a legal sense Eusebius actions may be analysed and presented as an instance of the fraudulent misrepresentation of history. Richard Carrier states that "Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous."