Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

maryhelena wrote:
Did the gospel writers used the historical crucifixion, the hanging on a cross, of Antigonus, for their pseudo-historical crucifixion story of their gospel Jesus? With Greg Doudna' interpretation of the Qumran documents - the plausibility that that is indeed what they have done is considerable.....

I read a lot of history...a LOT. Everything from 5000 BC to WW II.

Never in my experience have I seen so much BS piled on to any historic event the way people try to pile onto the Bible.

The gospels depict events that happened and are a part of history. The desire to believe otherwise requires the disposal of too much evidence to be rational. I don't get why anyone would go down that road.

If you keep saying it loud enough, maybe it will come true.

Mental flatliner wrote:The gospels depict events that happened and are a part of history. The desire to believe otherwise requires the disposal of too much evidence to be rational. I don't get why anyone would go down that road.

The gospels are part of history. The narratives in them remain unsubstantiated.

A lot of reasons, with none of them having historical truth as a goal. Most of it is political- with feminism rising to the for. The Jesus Seminar was put together partially to be an semi-scholarly answer to the right-wing fundamentalists.

And some people just don't like religion. So they debunk what it is based on as much as possible.

For example, the Seminarians and others argue that ACTS was put together in the second century. But nothing in Acts is at odds with what we know of secular history through other ancient writings or archeological finds.

Just sayin

That's incorrect. Acts has several historical errors.

Many (if not most) of the seminarians were Christians, by the way.

MrMacSon wrote:

Mental flatliner wrote:The gospels depict events that happened and are a part of history. The desire to believe otherwise requires the disposal of too much evidence to be rational. I don't get why anyone would go down that road.

The gospels are part of history. The narratives in them remain unsubstantiated.

Since when do primary historical sources require substantiation?

And who in modern times has the personal knowledge of these events to declare them substantiated?

Beware the arrogance of people with letters after their name claiming to be experts. It works with chemistry and physics and astronomy. It does not work with history. The only potential experts of history are eye-witnesses. History must be approached humbly or you simply never learn it.

(I read this statement in most of the history books I buy. If you've never seen it before, you're reading bad books. Historians in many areas of specialization always caution against the frauds on the internet and some in real life who pose themselves as experts but aren't, and they always caution against the use of experts over the use of primary sources.)

Mental flatliner wrote:Since when do primary historical sources require substantiation?

Since always, but the Gospels are not primary sources. They're not even secondary.

And who in modern times has the personal knowledge of these events to declare them substantiated?

This is a ludicrously backwards question. Knowledge of what events? You have the burden to prove those things happened. No authority is required to observe that a claim is unsubstantiated.

The only potential experts of history are eye-witnesses.

This is horseshit, but we have no eyewitness testimony about Jesus anyway, so it's a moot point.

We DO have eyewitnesses who saw Charles Manson perform miracles. For instance, some of his followers say he made a truck fly with them inside it. Do you believe them. By your own logic, since you were not there, you have no authority to say they are wrong and you must presume that the story is true.

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:

Mental flatliner wrote:Since when do primary historical sources require substantiation?

Since always, but the Gospels are not primary sources. They're not even secondary.

And who in modern times has the personal knowledge of these events to declare them substantiated?

This is a ludicrously backwards question. Knowledge of what events? You have the burden to prove those things happened. No authority is required to observe that a claim is unsubstantiated.

The only potential experts of history are eye-witnesses.

This is horseshit, but we have no eyewitness testimony about Jesus anyway, so it's a moot point.

We DO have eyewitnesses who saw Charles Manson perform miracles. For instance, some of his followers say he made a truck fly with them inside it. Do you believe them. By your own logic, since you were not there, you have no authority to say they are wrong and you must presume that the story is true.

This isn't an answer, it's really nothing but a rant against the Gospels.

Primary historical sources never need substantiation. They are the highest form and quality of evidence available.
You have failed to show how the gospels are not eye-witness accounts, therefore your claim can be freely ignored.

(How do you think that a primary source MUST be confirmed, but your claim need not be?)

Most readers will see your backward thinking here.