2. the original manuscripts weren't attributed to anyone, and it seems as if liars just started claiming that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in order to gain credibility. this sort of thing was common in the ancient world.

3. we don't really know when they were written, but we're fairly sure it was decades after the death of Jesus

4. there are a bunch of different versions of the gospels that say completely different things

5. the gospels directly contradict each other

6. some of the stories in the gospels seem entirely made up, like the herod story that is used to explain why someone who lived in Nazareth would be born in Bethlehem (messianic prophecy)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393304)

The fucking gospels are the BEST 1st c. documents we have, better than faggot Josephus, whose work was not nearly copied or referred to or preserved at a fraction of the gospels.

And no, they're not histories nor do they purport to be histories, but only retard atheists and retard full-on evangelicals read so literally.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393345)

but let me take your faggot bait.

There is historical evidence of the resurrection, which includes the gospels, though the gospels arent written as histories. They have their own literary genre and are far more concerned with imparting a religious message than in detailing what we call "history", which raises another point that is lost on your faggot ass, which is that "history" is not some universal concept accepted and understood the same way by all cultures forever.

Does faith in the resurrection depend on historical scholarship? Of course not. Tho you can't grasp that.

Is there historical support for it? Yes there is, though it is slight.

What is remarkable about the gospels and NT letters is that regardless of how you feel about their authors' motivations, we have a treasure trove of ancient texts and are able to read within them and around them things to do with history, authorship, revision, language, distribution, culture, etc.

The NT is probably the best source of ANY knowledge of that world at that time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393376)

Clarify your thoughts before you post, faggot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393390)

If you mean, in general, do I think there is support for the claim that one of the things Christian believers in the Res can rely on is that it makes historical sense, then yes, that adds up.

Historical documents from the time immed following make it likely to the point of certainty that the early church, including purported witnesses to the resurrection, traveled far and wide talking about it, often at the cost of their own lives.

Perhaps they were all psychotic or conspiring? Perhaps. But reasonable modern historian could say there exists some evidence that they witnessed something that spurred their activity and martyrdom.

Should that make your gay ass a Christian? Probably not. But if you were a Xian does that give you some solace? Idk maybe.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393412)

Read John Meier's "A Marginal Jew" series if you have actual interest in real historical jesus scholarship.

If you trash his shit, Id at least have to concede you read serious stuff first.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393454)

Meier's a former jesuit.

Like I said, trash it all, I dont give a shit. But I think you'd find stuff in the catholic tradition that you'd at least concede was thoughtful and genuine in the way it asks questions.

A guy like Meier is not rushing to confirm his biases and seems sincere in his desire to do history.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393474)

Is it more likely it happened or that humans lied to manipulate others?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393405)

5 is obviously correct and I don't want to argue over specific contradictions. Go read the Gospels side by side.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393371)

As for the gnostic Gospels, with the exception of Thomas all of them were written significantly later; Thomas is mostly just a collection of sayings, and was rejected because early Christians did not regard it as sufficiently orthodox or inspired.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393477)

3. point? also, there were certainly written in a range of years, by early christians, very possibly by apostles themselves or other eyewitnesses, almost certainly by people who had extensive interaction with eyewitnesses, probably even while those eyewitnesses were still alive

4-5. actually supports argument that gospels were based on many different eyewitness testimonies, and also not a scheme of fabrication which would have been more unanimous.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393450)

3. it's hard to assess the credibility of an anonymous document that claims magic is really, n'est pas?

I mean different versions of the 4 "canonical" gospels

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393457)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament#Gospels

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393551)

>nd the rest are short things that are, a

Yeah, you can assert that, but it's just the way Christians explain away the problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393620)

just a thought

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393516)

Ancient manuscripts written mere decades after the death of the historical events about which they report are UNIQUE. The NT is the only such example, especially considering the quantity of manuscript evidence. There is no other ancient manuscript that comes close. Most are CENTURIES after the events they report on.

For instance, we have 8 copies of Herodotus, and 8 of Thucydides, the earliest of which come from 1300 years after the fact. The NT has almost 6000 manuscripts in Greek alone, and several times more than that number in other languages. And the earliest ones are from decades after the fact. There is no comparison.

Read this for an overview of you like. It's basic obviously but gives the honest inquirer (of which you obviously are not one) a sense of the landscape:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

If you don't want to believe, then don't. But don't just make things up that are completely false.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25394522)

eta---also, because T and H's histories are not religious texts there is far less motivation for scribes to alter and add to their accounts, as we know they did with the bible and with writer's who wrote the history of the region like Josephus.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25394593)

I do know that because of the huge array of manuscript evidence from numerous manuscript families of the NT (which again has no analog among ancient texts) scholars can readily identify errors/amendments/etc. to the NT and there is essentially universal consensus on what the texts originally said.

I agree that the authorship question is more open to question. And is by its nature more controversial and less certain, especially to readers 2000 years later. But I don't think authorship is ultimately conclusive one way or another for questions of truth/faith. In other words, even if it could be established that an eyewitness wrote each of the four gospels, I don't think that would convince most modern skeptics - nor should it. The more important question, in my opinion, is about the content of the texts and whether at the deepest level they ring true in what they say about human nature and ultimate reality.

I think they do. Others will disagree. The history can be (and is) used by both sides to support their position, and will ultimately never prove anything. I just think in any case it's irresponsible to post complete lies about the history as Jack Frost did.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25394820)

In any case, if your claim were true it would not mean that we should accept the gospels. The reasons to be skeptical of texts written decades after the events they purport to describe would be the same even if what you were saying is true.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25394650)

I never claimed you should believe in Christianity because of the historical evidence for it (I think there are better reasons to believe than that).

I was just pointing out some of the numerous inaccuracies in your completely made-up earlier argument, namely that the manuscript evidence for the NT is poor, and that makes the Bible/Christianity less plausible. You're utterly wrong about this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25394727)

It's unfortunate that we don't have more evidence, but that doesn't justify reaching an unwarranted conclusion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25394881)

In that case, you might have considered a more accurate title/OP. Something like the following:

"I don't believe I can know anything about the world before the invention of the printing press. There is absolutely nothing special about the gospels that makes them particularly historically unreliable. In fact, as far as ancient sources go, they're the absolute best. But because I require modern standards of historical verifiability, I, being the daring intellectual giant that I am, cannot trust the accuracy of any historical account before the early modern period."

But that would make me look like an ass, you might say....

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25394967)

Despite these problems with the sources, the existence of Alexander is a reasonable belief because he has wide and independent attestation from all types of sources, and not just those of his own followers.

Some of these sources date from his own time, and are attested archaeologically, not just from later accounts. So, we don’t just have to depend on later historians such as Plutarch and Arrian.

For example, reliefs at the Shrine of the Bark at Luxor in Egypt mention Alexander by name, and depict him artistically during his lifetime (ca. 330-325 BCE). That would confirm his presence in Egypt mentioned by all major ancient sources.

Alexander Shrine at Luxor, Egypt

We also have a Mesopotamian tablet, now at the British Museum and designated as BM 36761, which mentions Alexander by name, and refers to his entry into Babylon (See Mesopotamian evidence):

-Akkadian (BM 36761, Reverse, line 11): A-lek-sa-an-dar-ri-is LUGAL ŠÚ ana E.KI K[U4

-English: "Alexander, the king of the world, entered Babylon"

Of course, Alexander is also mentioned or referenced in the Bible itself (1 Maccabees 1:1-7; Daniel 8:4-8, 21).

The claim found in Plutarch and Arrian that Alexander conquered Babylon is paralleled by this Mesopotamian source, which is not a Greek source or dependent on a Greek source or cannot be said to have been written by a Greek follower of Alexander.

When Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources, which are not otherwise dependent on each other, say the equivalent of “Alexander was here” during his lifetime, then it is reasonable to believe that there existed a man named Alexander who was present at those places.

That is why it is unfair to compare Jesus to Alexander in terms of historical evidence for their existence. There is nothing outside of later Christian sources saying Jesus was anywhere in his lifetime. Nothing in the New Testament is fully contemporary with Jesus.

There also are no Roman or Greek sources saying that there was even a group who believed that Jesus lived or did anything the Gospels allege about him. There is no archaeological evidence of his activities or of the activities of his group from Jesus’ supposed lifetime.

That absence of evidence is curious because, when speaking of Christianity, Acts 28:22 (RSV) says “everywhere it is spoken against.” More traces should remain in the first century of a group that everyone was speaking against.

In the case of Alexander, his fame was present in a wide range of sources as is expected of someone who was said to have conquered the known world. Alexander was closer to someone “everywhere spoken about” and there is independent corroborating evidence to confirm that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393640)

I wasn't saying anything about the matter of Alexander's existence, just about accounts of his life, which are a very different matter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393658)

Uneducated retards wrote a mythology? That characterization of the events seems off. It seems clear that a significant number of people genuinely believed that they witnessed the resurrected Jesus, to the point that they did not fear death and martyrdom. If you don't admit that, then you're the one with some kind of cognitive malfunction going on.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393701)

Talking to christians is literally like dealing with fifth graders

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#25393803)

https://www.richardcarrier.info/

this is the scholarship

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#34470372)

In terms of validity- probably only very slightly above a believer's assessment of the gospels.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2544750&forum_id=2#34470404)