Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 19:38:05 GMT
The gospels are a primary source. ...and this is the problem, since the Gospels were written by anonymous authors long after the events took place. Irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 18, 2017 19:39:22 GMT
Yes, I'm sure your faith serves you well. Just let me know when you have a primary source account of any witnesses to Jesus' resurrection.
I have no faith. You have tons more faith than I do. You'd make the best fundamentalist in any religion. I'm merely using logic, mathematics, and deductions. I'm not one of the ones God and Jesus cares much about, because I'm not like you. I have no faith at all. I arrive to the conclusion based on objective reasoning after years of research and living in the world. I've lived in dozens of different places in the world, worked in hundreds of places, played about every role there is in life, socialized with about every single class below the first estate. I'm sorry to say I am worldly, and have savvy. I arrive at the holy ghost through intellectual means, which is not the most blessed way. I miss out on the blessings others have. I'd love to have your amount of faith. Could you bless us all with a brief outline of your reasoning? If it's really complicated, maybe just give chapter titles (if you were to write a book about it).
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 18, 2017 20:09:44 GMT
...and this is the problem, since the Gospels were written by anonymous authors long after the events took place. Irrelevant. Only irrelevant if you don't know or are lying about what "primary source" means.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Apr 18, 2017 20:21:34 GMT
...and this is the problem, since the Gospels were written by anonymous authors long after the events took place. Irrelevant. Sorry! When you mentioned the Gospels as a "primary source", I assumed you meant a primary source of trustworthy information. I shouldn't have assumed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 21:24:18 GMT
Only irrelevant if you don't know or are lying about what "primary source" means. In order for something to be a primary source it only really has to be the first or original source of information about the fact. By whom and how far after the fact it was written has nothing to do with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 21:27:10 GMT
Sorry! When you mentioned the Gospels as a "primary source", I assumed you meant a primary source of trustworthy information. I shouldn't have assumed. And I've shown you why the gospels are considered trustworthy information. I even gave you two of the greatest secular archaeologists of the 20th century who can vouch for it's reliability. Seriously, are you trolling?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 21:40:02 GMT
The gospels are a primary source. No, I'm afraid they're not. Primary sources are eyewitness accounts. Who was the eyewitness present at Jesus' birth? Who was the eyewitness who was with the boy Jesus' parents when they found him in discussions with elders? Who was the eyewitness with Jesus when he wandered alone in the desert and encountered Satan? Who recorded Jesus' comments to God in the Garden of Gethsemane when his followers were left behind and fell asleep? The Gospels were not written as historical accounts. They are hagiographical texts. They don't have to be eyewitness accounts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 21:44:31 GMT
There's a good academic book out there called The Jesus Legend that demonstrates that the Gospels can be understood to be very reliable historical documents. In fact, if you take each of the four biographical writings on their own and put them through the "historical reliability" tests that we use for other ancient documents, they pass with flying colors. Really? The gospels were written long after the events, by people who were not there to see what they wrote about. In what way is that "passing with flying colours"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 21:45:51 GMT
Yes, I'm sure your faith serves you well. Just let me know when you have a primary source account of any witnesses to Jesus' resurrection.
The gospels are a primary source. A primary source is one that was created at the time under study. The gospels were not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 21:53:37 GMT
A primary source is an original study, document, object, or eyewitness account. In other words, this is the source where any given information first appeared. For instance, if a scientific study is performed, the primary source is the initial report that is prepared by the scientist(s) who performed the research.
☝️This is a better definition, Mr "I only believe stuff based on evidence or proof unless a scientist claims it"
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 18, 2017 21:56:12 GMT
Only irrelevant if you don't know or are lying about what "primary source" means. In order for something to be a primary source it only really has to be the first or original source of information about the fact. By whom and how far after the fact it was written has nothing to do with it. Simply being "primary" doesn't give it a legit reason for believing in something if that's what you're implying. I'm sure there's plenty of "primary" accounts about the divinity of Muhammed, does that mean they must be true?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 22:15:39 GMT
A primary source is an original study, document, object, or eyewitness account. In other words, this is the source where any given information first appeared. For instance, if a scientific study is performed, the primary source is the initial report that is prepared by the scientist(s) who performed the research. ☝️This is a better definition, Mr "I only believe stuff based on evidence or proof unless a scientist claims it" No, it is not. A primary source is one written when the event it's talking about happened. And you're resorting to lying again. It's a big giveaway that you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 23:04:26 GMT
There's a good academic book out there called The Jesus Legend that demonstrates that the Gospels can be understood to be very reliable historical documents. In fact, if you take each of the four biographical writings on their own and put them through the "historical reliability" tests that we use for other ancient documents, they pass with flying colors. Really? The gospels were written long after the events, by people who were not there to see what they wrote about. In what way is that "passing with flying colours"? I'm leaving for Vegas in a few hours, so I don't really have time to get into it, but the video I posted earlier gets into it. As does this one (from the author): If you're truly interested in learning more, you can watch either of those (keeping in mind that it's a brief summary of a 500 page scholarly work). If not, then don't watch. Doesn't matter to me. But either way, I don't have time for a drawn out back-and-forth on it. But let's just say that your assessment doesn't really paint an accurate picture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 23:37:03 GMT
"If you are seeking to learn about the past, primary sources of information are those that provide first-hand accounts of the events, practices, or conditions you are researching. In general, these are documents that were created by the witnesses or first recorders of these events at about the time they occurred, and include diaries, letters, reports, photographs, creative works, financial records, memos, and newspaper articles (to name just a few types). " www.library.illinois.edu/village/primarysource/mod1/pg1.htm
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Apr 19, 2017 0:59:59 GMT
"If you are seeking to learn about the past, primary sources of information are those that provide first-hand accounts of the events, practices, or conditions you are researching. In general, these are documents that were created by the witnesses or first recorders of these events at about the time they occurred, and include diaries, letters, reports, photographs, creative works, financial records, memos, and newspaper articles (to name just a few types). " www.library.illinois.edu/village/primarysource/mod1/pg1.htmSo, the gospels are not primary sources. I'm glad you cleared that up.
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Apr 19, 2017 1:48:56 GMT
"...or first recorders of these events at about the time they occurred..." Correct. But the rest of the sentence is also important. When historians refer to primary source evidence in documents, they are talking about contemporary and eyewitness accounts. Sometimes that includes the original claim, but not always.
The Gospels are the original claim for Jesus and the events described but were written decades after his death by unknown authors. Unknown authorship and no corroborating outside sources make it difficult to evaluate the accuracy of the claim. The info in them is obviously not all eyewitness accounts as I've previously noted. If any contemporaries of Jesus were present and contributed during the writing of the Gospels, we wouldn't know because we don't know who wrote those texts. That's one of the points which makes them hearsay and not primary source evidence. In this case historians can only take their best guesses about events which allegedly occurred based on what they think sounds reasonable.
I have no problem accepting that Jesus existed and was a wandering teacher who had followers and was later executed. But I don't accept the supernatural events because such claims as turning water into wine have never been shown to be possible (if only ). That's where the believer's faith comes in. I don't care if you believe it. But if you wish to claim someone rose from the dead as an historical fact (and I mean actually dead for days), it's going to require much more than hearsay to convince those who don't include faith in their assessment.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 19, 2017 6:33:01 GMT
Compelling? It's laughable. Their "facts" are all "things that scholars agree that the bible says". Sorry, but even if every scholar who ever lived agreed that the bible said those things, that doesn't make it so. But if it says it in the Bible then it must be true! LOL!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 7:36:11 GMT
"...or first recorders of these events at about the time they occurred..." Correct. But the rest of the sentence is also important. When historians refer to primary source evidence in documents, they are talking about contemporary and eyewitness accounts. Sometimes that includes the original claim, but not always.
The Gospels are the original claim for Jesus and the events described but were written decades after his death by unknown authors. Unknown authorship and no corroborating outside sources make it difficult to evaluate the accuracy of the claim. The info in them is obviously not all eyewitness accounts as I've previously noted. If any contemporaries of Jesus were present and contributed during the writing of the Gospels, we wouldn't know because we don't know who wrote those texts. That's one of the points which makes them hearsay and not primary source evidence. In this case historians can only take their best guesses about events which allegedly occurred based on what they think sounds reasonable.
I have no problem accepting that Jesus existed and was a wandering teacher who had followers and was later executed. But I don't accept the supernatural events because such claims as turning water into wine have never been shown to be possible (if only ). That's where the believer's faith comes in. I don't care if you believe it. But if you wish to claim someone rose from the dead as an historical fact (and I mean actually dead for days), it's going to require much more than hearsay to convince those who don't include faith in their assessment.
"According to the majority viewpoint the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, collectively referred to as the Synoptic Gospels, are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 7:41:28 GMT
Compelling? It's laughable. Their "facts" are all "things that scholars agree that the bible says". Sorry, but even if every scholar who ever lived agreed that the bible said those things, that doesn't make it so. But if it says it in the Bible then it must be true! LOL!!! Well the bible has said a lot that when after put under scrutiny has turned out to be true so.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 19, 2017 7:42:49 GMT
But if it says it in the Bible then it must be true! LOL!!! Well the bible has said a lot that when after put under scrutiny has turned out to be true so. A lot of science fiction I read has elements of truth in it. I don't think it was written by God.
|
|