Orthodox_Freethinker

Those who accuse the Gospels of complete historical innacuracy are either ignorant or dishonest. I find it to be very similar to a creationist who claims that there is no evidence in favor of evolution. I've read enough 'critiques' of the Gospels (and evolution) to see through their deceptions.
However, that does not mean that I'm able to definitively demonstrate the fact of univsersal common descent through the medium of an internet forum.

Tesseract

I havent seen anyone claim "complete historical inaccuracy," only that there are gaping holes in those stories which propose that our scientific observations of history are inaccurate.

Indeed, but maybe you can enlighten us on which parts of Gospel are accurate historical accounts so we may present our arguments with less ignorance?

FatherMithras

You "see through their deceptions?" Anyone who questions OFT ability to do so is encouraged to go look at his complete annihlation in the biblical hisotry and existence of God threads. He has plenty of misunderstandings about evolution and tends to use links as his sole reference to debate and to make logical errors (burden of proof, etc.). I personally find OFT to be a breath of fresh air for a Xian, but when he makes statements about the veracity of the gospels, the accuracy of Luke historically (histerically funny) and such we can determine that his arguments due not come from the evidence. He has beliefs, and he will insert them into his arguments, violating Ocham's razor. Nothing wrong with that as a belief system, but his continue claims ov equal veracity can be frusterating.

The biggest misinformation in the ID movement is their inclusion of a designer at all. Evolution has no need for a designer, and the mechanism is clearly not designed (and has no evidence to say it is).

FatherMithras

Much better put then my comment!


He already attempted to in the appropriate forum. However, he used arguments from an IDiot who had no validity and had been repeatedly refuted. There are other threads about it where his arguments likewise fail. He's a good chap though, as far as I'm concerned, he's simply holding to beliefs that give life meaning for him. If he needs it and is unwilling to accept otherwise, we can't convince im, but at least we can refute his arguments so other christians don't start using em!

judanne

Hang around long enough and I suspect you'll find your doubt unfounded.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Biblical archeology collaborates the Gospels as historical accounts.
As for 'gaping holes', this is what I see in those who attempt to discredit the authorship of the Gospels.

Sven

In which way?
Anyhow different to finding Troy and Mykene (sp?) collaborating the Illias?

FatherMithras

Biblical archaelogy? Is that like theobiology? Good old fashioned archeology has shown the Bible to have many false statements http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch2.html


Not to mention the fact when you read the histories of the times you learn that the biblical accoutns are horrendously inadequate. No need to cover this again as you were thoroughly refuted in the biblical history forum.

missus_gumby

O_F, Please be a little more careful in what you write.

The quote above could well be construed as you claiming to be a biblical literalist.

I know it's not the forum for this question, but: why is there no archaeological evidence of a massive Jewish slave presence in (biblical times) Egypt? Obviously, the list of this sort of question is long, but perhaps you would care to present any evidence for it in the Biblical Criticism and History forum?

Missus Gumby

Asha'man

This is getting way off topic for E/C, but I'll still address it.

You continue to make claims about the gospels that are simply untrue, but come directly from the Dogmatic Christian Playbook.

Biblical archeology confirms that the authors of the gospels make numerous serious geographical errors, which implies they probably were not the first hand accounts you think the were. Archeology also puts serious doubts into the town of Nazareth, it may not even have been inhabited during the 1st century. Round tomb stones were very rarely used in the early 1st century, but became more popular later in the century, indicating another probably anachronism in the story.

If you want to examine earlier history, long before the gospel timeframe, archeology essentially destroys much of the Hebrew Bible. Everything from Abraham down thru Moses and then to David and Solomon are shown to be almost certain myth.