Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Shaker]

As smackdowns go, that's pretty good.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly - if we are asked to believe what is in the bible is literally true then we need evidence to back that up - particularly for the extraordinary claims.

Well that's a straw man for a start.
Also the extraordinary claims are the alpha and omega of your bible bowdlerisation and caricature forming.

[jeremyp]

Well that's a straw man for a start.
Also the extraordinary claims are the alpha and omega of your bible bowdlerisation and caricature forming.

Do you believe that Jesus was literally resurrected from the dead or not?

[Sassy]

Too, often man relies on what he reads rather than the message in what he reads.
Does the writer set out to make men question and think for themselves what the life of Christ really means?
Does he speak only to reveal his own thoughts?
Or is it the same old story? trying to convey their own beliefs onto others?

The most original writers bring  to life the experience of having found and believed what is written within the pages.
We see Christ portrayed as a caring and powerful human being but giving the Glory for everything he does to God.

If Christ wanted just fame or even fortune with what he did, that would have been easy. Charge for the service.
But the things of God cannot be bought and they are certainly from the human themselves.

Christ tells us what God wants not just from us, what he wants for us and that suffering was never his intention.

We all take what we will but it is what we can receive in truth from the facts of Christ which count.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you believe that Jesus was literally resurrected from the dead or not?

I do as my experience gives me no reason to dismiss it and because it fits the available history.

However just to deal with this means I'm merely talking about resurrection with someone who doesn't believe it, rather than Christianity, Christ and Christ crucified. 

[Spud]

In what way does this address the risks of mistakes or lies in the content of the NT, such as in the details you note here. That supporters of a cause might suffer as a consequence does not imply that their cause is justified.

It's not about whether the cause is justified but whether it is true. Eg we see Muslims fighting for their religion. Therefore it is likely that when the Koran says Mohammed told his followers to fight for their religion, Mohammed actually did say that. We read of early Christians being stoned by the Jewish authorities, therefore it is likely that the gospels are historical documents (according to the argument made in post 81).

[Spud]

Doesn't matter whether it is based on fact or not, it is fiction. Either that or Zeus is the true God.
 
Not really. The gospels were not written by eye witnesses, nor did they have easy access to eye witnesses. Don't forget that the journey required to interrogate eye witnesses - assuming they were still alive - would have been long and hazardous.

So you claim there were eye witnesses still alive when the gospels were written  but you can cite no evidence that these alleged eye witnesses existed. Your claim is therefore void and your argument has collapsed.
There's a difference between "known to" and "known of". I know of Winston Churchill and you might cite him in a book about World War 2, but that doesn't mean he was alive when I was born.
Aha. So you agree having more details than just there were x number of them is important. Please hold your Bible to the same standards of evidence as you are trying to hold me to here.

How about the traditions quoted by Paul, such as "for what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." To quote  Fr. Dwight Longenecker:

"What these early Christian creeds show is that the so-called mythological elements of the gospels (angels, resurrection, ascension into heaven, Son of God) were not later additions and accretions to the tradition, but were part of the beliefs about Jesus from the very earliest days, beliefs that the gospels attest to, Paul affirms, and Christians today still hold."

https://strangenotions.com/how-do-we-know-the-gospels-are-historical/

[Owlswing]

It's not about whether the cause is justified but whether it is true. Eg we see Muslims fighting for their religion. Therefore it is likely that Mohammed told his followers to fight for their religion. We read of early Christians being stoned by the Jewish authorities, therefore it is likely that the gospels are historical documents (according to the argument made in post 81).

Don't be daft! Chrstians were being stoned by the Jews hundreds of years before Islam existed. It is more likely that Islam looked at the Bible, thought here's a good idea, the Jews stoned their religious enemies, so we will stone our religious enemies.

It does not matter if the Bible is fact or fiction in this case!

[jeremyp]

I do.

So this thing you are claiming is a straw man i.e. we are asked to believe that extraordinary claims in the Bible are literally true is not a straw man.

Some more:

Do you believe that Jesus literally changed water into wine and fed 5,000 people with a few fishes and loaves? Do you believe that Jesus literally healed blind people and lepers?

Please quit with the straw man bollocks.

[jeremyp]

How about the traditions quoted by Paul, such as "for what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." To quote  Fr. Dwight Longenecker:

Paul claims to have received his gospel through revelation and not the testimony of others. He explicitly denies that his gospel comes from eye witnesses.

"What these early Christian creeds show is that the so-called mythological elements of the gospels (angels, resurrection, ascension into heaven, Son of God) were not later additions and accretions to the tradition, but were part of the beliefs about Jesus from the very earliest days, beliefs that the gospels attest to, Paul affirms, and Christians today still hold."

https://strangenotions.com/how-do-we-know-the-gospels-are-historical/

Could you explain where Paul talks about angels and healing of sick people and turning water into wine and everything in the gospels except the bare bones of the death and resurrection?

Don't forget that you are supposed to be trying to show that eye witnesses were involved in the production of the gospels. Paul's letters are closer to Jesus in time and in human connections but they are frustratingly sparse on the subject of the life of Jesus as well as explicitly denying that he had human sources.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So this thing you are claiming is a straw man i.e. we are asked to believe that extraordinary claims in the Bible are literally true is not a straw man.

That is not the straw man the straw man is that I am asking people to believe that what is in the bible is literally true. Some of it is metaphorical and allegorical. However should one choose the metaphorical and allegorical meaning at any point you should consider what it is a metaphor and allegory for.

An understanding of Christianity that involves an informed overview than a claim that some religious mandarin is forcing you to believe the extremist of stuff would help out here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you believe that Jesus literally changed water into wine and fed 5,000 people with a few fishes and loaves? Do you believe that Jesus literally healed blind people and lepers?

With God what is not possible?
However since you cover these in a sentence they are not the essence of the New testament nor necessary for salvation.

Therefore to me I am merely talking about a select few miracles with someone who doesn't believe them rather than addressing Christianity.

[Gordon]

It's not about whether the cause is justified but whether it is true.

To be true then mistakes and lies would have been assessed and dismissed as being likely risks - how has this been done in respect of the NT?
   

Eg we see Muslims fighting for their religion. Therefore it is likely that when the Koran says Mohammed told his followers to fight for their religion, Mohammed actually did say that.

How do you know Mohammed actually said that? You (or Muslims) might like to believe he did but you/they don't know he did, as in having knowledge, so there is reasonable doubt.
 

We read of early Christians being stoned by the Jewish authorities, therefore it is likely that the gospels are historical documents (according to the argument made in post 81).

So what? That people suffer for a cause may say something about the people but it isn't confirmation of the truth of their cause. You need to be careful with the term 'historical' - the NT is certainly a historical document given the passage of time since it first appeared but that is very different from presuming its content is all established historical fact - for example, you won't find a professional historian claiming that the death and claimed resurrection of Jesus is historically true.

The content of your #81 isn't an argument: it is just naive assertion.

[floo]

Too, often man relies on what he reads rather than the message in what he reads.
Does the writer set out to make men question and think for themselves what the life of Christ really means?
Does he speak only to reveal his own thoughts?
Or is it the same old story? trying to convey their own beliefs onto others?

The most original writers bring  to life the experience of having found and believed what is written within the pages.
We see Christ portrayed as a caring and powerful human being but giving the Glory for everything he does to God.

If Christ wanted just fame or even fortune with what he did, that would have been easy. Charge for the service.
But the things of God cannot be bought and they are certainly from the human themselves.

Christ tells us what God wants not just from us, what he wants for us and that suffering was never his intention.

We all take what we will but it is what we can receive in truth from the facts of Christ which count.

More assertions no evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

With God what is not possible?

Given that we have no evidence that god even exists your point is moot.

Prove that god exists and then we can move onto your question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given that we have no evidence that god even exists your point is moot.

Prove that god exists and then we can move onto your question.

Prove naturalism.

[Shaker]

Prove naturalism.

Burden of proof: shifted.

[Stranger]

Prove naturalism.

Wow Vlad, you seem to have been playing a game of changing the subject every time your arguments get ripped to shreds - and here we go again.

Naturalism is irrelevant. Even if reality is full of magic and the supernatural, with gods and goddesses aplenty, the god to which you refer, still might not exist. If you're going to make a specific claim, it's up to you to give a reason why anybody should take it seriously.

[Owlswing]

Another thread going absolutely nowhere due to the terminally brain-washed Christians.

[ippy]

Another thread going absolutely nowhere due to the terminally brain-washed Christians.

I so agree with you Owl this indoctrination figures in so many cases, they must be aware of their lack of any kind of evidential base for the things they assert, yet they still hang on to their baseless ideas with a sadly pointless zeel, it has to be indoctrination v reality.

Regards ippy

[jeremyp]

That is not the straw man the straw man is that I am asking people to believe that what is in the bible is literally true. Some of it is metaphorical and allegorical. However should one choose the metaphorical and allegorical meaning at any point you should consider what it is a metaphor and allegory for.

How is anybody supposed to know which bits are metaphorical and which bits are literal?

Since this thread is about the fine details of the gospels, perhaps you could list the bits of them that are literally true and the bits that are metaphor.

[jeremyp]

With God what is not possible?
However since you cover these in a sentence they are not the essence of the New testament nor necessary for salvation.

Therefore to me I am merely talking about a select few miracles with someone who doesn't believe them rather than addressing Christianity.

I think you are missing the point of the thread here. This thread is not about Christianity as a whole but the "Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?"  Therefore, it seems reasonable to talk about the fine details of the gospel and whether they are made up without people whining about essences and salvation.

[Sebastian Toe]

Prove naturalism.

He asked you first!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Burden of proof: shifted.

I'm afraid naturalism has always had a burden of proof Shaker.I don't need to shift anything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He asked you first!

I'm afraid naturalism has had a burden of proof since before any of us were born.