Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 7:51:50 GMT
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_GospelsCody they are the "primary source" of information about Jesus but are not themselves primary sources,in fact they should have never been referred to as "primary sources" a more accurate description would have been the "only sources". Show me one reputable historian who refers to the gospels as primary sources. Whoever wrote that sentence on Wikipedia was being deliberately misleading or was historically illiterate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 7:57:10 GMT
Notice the atheists who havent watched the entire video are disagreeing with it. Blade, why are you using a sock account? It's because he's posting racist trash on the politics board and doesn't have the balls to post it using his original account. This thread being a prime example: imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/19784/facebook-killers-last-words
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 8:01:24 GMT
A lot of science fiction I read has elements of truth in it. I don't think it was written by God. But then science fiction doesn't claim to be, nor is it intended to be. There's a reason why it's called fiction. Science fiction also doesn't tend to contain fulfilled prophecies or be compiled by authors who were eyewitnesses to the events.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 19, 2017 8:17:15 GMT
But then science fiction doesn't claim to be, nor is it intended to be. There's a reason why it's called fiction. Science fiction also doesn't tend to contain fulfilled prophecies or be compiled by authors who were eyewitnesses to the events. Just because someone makes a claim doesn't make it true. If you could prove that your religion is true then everyone in the world would be converted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 8:19:06 GMT
But then science fiction doesn't claim to be, nor is it intended to be. There's a reason why it's called fiction. Science fiction also doesn't tend to contain fulfilled prophecies or be compiled by authors who were eyewitnesses to the events. So the apostles were eyewitnesses to the accounts described in the gospels were they Cody? From the very same source you quoted: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Authorship_and_dateSo no Cody not eye witness accounts and not primary sources.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 8:59:09 GMT
John virtually confirms in his gospel that he was an eyewitness. We have extra-biblical sources reporting that Matthew was the author of the gospel attributed to him. Mark was an interpreter of Peter who was an eyewitness. Mark's gospel consists of the words and memories of Peter. Luke was not an eyewitness but makes it clear that he was relying on true eyewitness testimony when gathering his information. The gospels are first record accounts. So again yes the authors were eyewitness and the gospels are primary sources
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 19, 2017 9:12:42 GMT
John virtually confirms in his gospel that he was an eyewitness. We have extra-biblical sources reporting that Matthew was the author of the gospel attributed to him. Mark was an interpreter of Peter who was an eyewitness. Mark's gospel consists of the words and memories of Peter. Luke was not an eyewitness but makes it clear that he was relying on true eyewitness testimony when gathering his information. The gospels are first record accounts. So again yes the authors were eyewitness and the gospels are primary sources There is no such thing as 'virtually' confirming something, you either confirm it or you don't. If you could give proof that Jesus rose from the dead and is the son of God then you would, and everyone in the world would be a Christian. Jesus wasn't really considered a deity till after the First Council of Nicaea when they decided that he was the flesh and blood son of God and not simply an enlightened prophet. Some people told you that they have the truth about God and you believed them. Gullibility is not a virtue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 9:27:01 GMT
John virtually confirms in his gospel that he was an eyewitness. We have extra-biblical sources reporting that Matthew was the author of the gospel attributed to him. Mark was an interpreter of Peter who was an eyewitness. Mark's gospel consists of the words and memories of Peter. Luke was not an eyewitness but makes it clear that he was relying on true eyewitness when gathering his information. The gospels are first record accounts. So again yes the authors were eyewitness and the gospels are primary sources So you've shown yourself to be a liar for Jesus Cody. I addressed all this in my previous post In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[116][117] Sources: 1) To most modern scholars direct apostolic authorship has therefore seemed unlikely." "John, Gospel of." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005 2) Jump up ^ Gospel According to John, Encyclopædia Britannica Do we Cody? Where's a link to them then. Tradition holds that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist, as St. Peter's interpreter.[67] Numerous early sources say that Mark's material was dictated to him by St. Peter, who later compiled it into his gospel.[70][71][72][73][74] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, which vary in form and in theology, and which tell against the story that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[75] Source: Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 24-27. Even if that were true Cody anybody that relies on someone else's testimony is called a secondary source not a primary one,you only expose your ignorance of historical research with that comment. No Cody repeating something does not make it true. The gospels are of disputed authenticity and disputed time frames no reputable historian would ever refer to them as "primary sources". Perhaps you could quote one doing so instead of engaging in standard Christian apologetics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 9:29:10 GMT
John virtually confirms in his gospel that he was an eyewitness. We have extra-biblical sources reporting that Matthew was the author of the gospel attributed to him. Mark was an interpreter of Peter who was an eyewitness. Mark's gospel consists of the words and memories of Peter. Luke was not an eyewitness but makes it clear that he was relying on true eyewitness testimony when gathering his information. The gospels are first record accounts. So again yes the authors were eyewitness and the gospels are primary sources Jesus wasn't really considered a deity till after the First Council of Nicaea when they decided that he was the flesh and blood son of God and not simply an enlightened prophet. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion please.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 19, 2017 9:33:24 GMT
John virtually confirms in his gospel that he was an eyewitness. We have extra-biblical sources reporting that Matthew was the author of the gospel attributed to him. Mark was an interpreter of Peter who was an eyewitness. Mark's gospel consists of the words and memories of Peter. Luke was not an eyewitness but makes it clear that he was relying on true eyewitness testimony when gathering his information. The gospels are first record accounts. So again yes the authors were eyewitness and the gospels are primary sources Never heard of the suggested 'Q' document, which many scholars consider the earlier, original source behind much of the Gospels, eh? Or the scholarly acceptance that all of the gospels were originally written in Greek? Don't know the difference between primary sources and primary documents ? Ever wonder why none of the events which are purportedly described in the Gospels are not substantiated, or even mentioned, by contemporaries, not even the Jewish writers of the time? Or why the first mention of a Jesus at all doesn't appear outside the Bible until Josephus, as late as 93-94AD (but who still does not mention the central Xian myths) and even then is generally considered most likely corrupted or interfered with by later Xians? And whatever you say about the supposed authors of the Gospels they are all ascribed more or less on the basis of tradition. There are, in addition particular concerns about the supposed historicity of John, and the reliability of the text.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 9:36:12 GMT
Jesus wasn't really considered a deity till after the First Council of Nicaea when they decided that he was the flesh and blood son of God and not simply an enlightened prophet. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion please. Jesus Christ Cody have you never heard of the Arian question?
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 19, 2017 9:38:33 GMT
I'll have to say that in order for me to accept the ressurection of Jesus, I require better than evidence than the Bible.
If there is one situation where the sentence: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies, it's this one.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 19, 2017 9:44:27 GMT
Jesus wasn't really considered a deity till after the First Council of Nicaea when they decided that he was the flesh and blood son of God and not simply an enlightened prophet. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion please. Pull your nose out of the Bible and read some history. The only people who started saying Jesus was the son of God were people who wanted power over others. Like your priest holds spiritual power over you, even though you are as close to God as he is. It sucks when the person doing the preaching (you) knows less about his religion than the people he's preaching to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 10:14:12 GMT
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion please. Pull your nose out of the Bible and read some history. The only people who started saying Jesus was the son of God were people who wanted power over others. Like your priest holds spiritual power over you, even though you are as close to God as he is. It sucks when the person doing the preaching (you) knows less about his religion than the people he's preaching to. You made a historical claim, I'm now asking you to back it up with historical facts. Are you prepared to support your claim?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 10:16:58 GMT
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion please. Jesus Christ Cody have you never heard of the Arian question? The Arian question has nothing to do with what Sam originally claimed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 10:44:16 GMT
Jesus Christ Cody have you never heard of the Arian question? The Arian question has nothing to do with what Sam originally claimed. Sam said this: After the first council of Nicaea they created a new creed called the Nicene creed. It concluded the following: So that's when Christ's status as a deity was confirmed and the trinity was born. He was established as the son of god "begotten"(born) not "made". The Arians claims were rejected: There viewpoint was that Jesus was a "creature" created by God and not his son nor equal. The Nicene viewpoint won out and became accepted Christian doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 19, 2017 11:22:32 GMT
The Arian question has nothing to do with what Sam originally claimed. Sam said this: After the first council of Nicaea they created a new creed called the Nicene creed. It concluded the following: So that's when Christ's status as a deity was confirmed and the trinity was born. He was established as the son of god "begotten"(born) not "made". The Arians claims were rejected: There viewpoint was that Jesus was a "creature" created by God and not his son nor equal. The Nicene viewpoint won out and became accepted Christian doctrine. What is notable for most atheists in so far as this part of the Christian belief system is concerned was that Jesus-as-God was not evident enough to be taken for granted, even after 4 Gospels and all the work of the proselytizers. It had to go to vote, and a hotly disputed one at that.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 19, 2017 12:39:32 GMT
Jesus rising from the dead is part of my belief system. But it's a matter of faith, not something I have evidence I could present to prove it to others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 12:50:34 GMT
The Arian question has nothing to do with what Sam originally claimed. Sam said this: After the first council of Nicaea they created a new creed called the Nicene creed. It concluded the following: So that's when Christ's status as a deity was confirmed and the trinity was born. He was established as the son of god "begotten"(born) not "made". The Arians claims were rejected: There viewpoint was that Jesus was a "creature" created by God and not his son nor equal. The Nicene viewpoint won out and became accepted Christian doctrine. Again it has nothing to do with what Sam said. Sam claimed Jesus wasn't considered deity until after the council of Nicea. That is demonstrably false. The Arian question was simply a debate about the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 19, 2017 12:57:51 GMT
tpfkar You guys would't be so frantic with the semantical wankery unless you were trying to prop up your own flagging beliefs. Women shouldn't be presidents, prime ministers or chancellors.
|
|