Why do some assume that the gospel authors knew Jesus ?

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,272
#91
He was merely indicating that one way to settle a question is to dismiss it out of hand without further consideration. :) Many contributions to threads like this always take that form.
When ZERO eveidence is presented d and the teh arguments is maybe this or that as unfounded and unsupported claims.

It;s entirely reasonable,
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,083
Dispargum
#93
When ZERO eveidence is presented d and the teh arguments is maybe this or that as unfounded and unsupported claims.

It;s entirely reasonable,
Is this a reference to my post #65 and your post #66? I have not attempted an evidence-based argument nor am I speculating. I am making a logical argument in response to Maribat's previous logical argument. Maribat has committed a false choice fallacy. He claimed there are two possibilities: Matthew is an eyewitness or Matthew is a novelist. He then makes a decent case that on at least one occasion Matthew was not an eyewitness. Maribat then wants us to believe that through process of elimination Matthew must be a novelist.

I countered that there is a third possibility - that Matthew got his information from a third party. This should be self-evident. Nearly every writer does get information from a third party. It certainly is not a radical or unreasonable idea.

Since there are now two viable possibilities of how Matthew got his information, we can no longer use process of elimination to prove that Matthew was a novelist. If Maribat, who made the initial claim, wants us to believe that Matthew is a novelist, he must either prove that directly, or he can prove that Matthew did not get any information from a third party. So far, he as done neither. This is where we stand right now. Matthew might be a novelist or he may have consulted third parties.

This is the same argument that MG1962 made yesterday to Tomar. He was also dismissed on charges of speculation and zero evidence. Somehow Maribat and Tomar got passes on their false choice fallacies. MG1962 and I both called them on it, but somehow, we're the bad guys. It's not on MG1962 and I to prove that our reasonable alternatives actually happened. It's on the people using process of elimination arguments, in this case Tomar and Maribat, to eliminate all of the reasonable alternatives before they can declare that only one viable option remains.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,272
#94
Is this a reference to my post #65 and your post #66? I have not attempted an evidence-based argument nor am I speculating. I am making a logical argument in response to Maribat's previous logical argument. Maribat has committed a false choice fallacy. He claimed there are two possibilities: Matthew is an eyewitness or Matthew is a novelist. He then makes a decent case that on at least one occasion Matthew was not an eyewitness. Maribat then wants us to believe that through process of elimination Matthew must be a novelist.

I countered that there is a third possibility - that Matthew got his information from a third party. This should be self-evident. Nearly every writer does get information from a third party. It certainly is not a radical or unreasonable idea.

Since there are now two viable possibilities of how Matthew got his information, we can no longer use process of elimination to prove that Matthew was a novelist. If Maribat, who made the initial claim, wants us to believe that Matthew is a novelist, he must either prove that directly, or he can prove that Matthew did not get any information from a third party. So far, he as done neither. This is where we stand right now. Matthew might be a novelist or he may have consulted third parties.

This is the same argument that MG1962 made yesterday to Tomar. He was also dismissed on charges of speculation and zero evidence. Somehow Maribat and Tomar got passes on their false choice fallacies. MG1962 and I both called them on it, but somehow, we're the bad guys. It's not on MG1962 and I to prove that our reasonable alternatives actually happened. It's on the people using process of elimination arguments, in this case Tomar and Maribat, to eliminate all of the reasonable alternatives before they can declare that only one viable option remains.
No the burden of proof remains with those making claims. You have no evidence. No one had to prove "Mathew" was novelists. It's on you provide evedence that he had solide information to base he writrings on. You' don;t. Your case fails for lack of ANY evdience what so ever.
.
here is no evdidence that the gospel writers had any real knowledge of what they were writing about.

As historicall documents they are near valueless. There is no evdience that they were written by people who had any real knowledge.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,083
Dispargum
#95
No the burden of proof remains with those making claims.
Exactly. But it was Tomar and Maribat that made the original claims and it was on them to convince us to believe them. All MG and I did was point out holes in their arguments so that they could make better, more complete arguments. So far, they have failed to do so.

I have never argued that Matthew was not a novelist. I do not need evidence to make a case I am not making. You're right, no one had to prove that Matthew was a novelist, but Tomar and Maribat both attempted to do so. So far, their arguments are incomplete.
 
Last edited:

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
#96
Exactly. But it was Tomar and Maribat that made the original claims and it was on them to convince us to believe them. All MG and I did was point out holes in their arguments so that they could make better, more complete arguments. So far, they have failed to do so.

I have never argued that Matthew was not a novelist. I do not need evidence to make a case I am not making. You're right, no one had to prove that Matthew was a novelist, but Tomar and Maribat both attempted to do so. So far, their arguments are incomplete.
1. histories in that time were written in quite different way. You know what if you read some of them. Apparently gospels were not histories in that sense. They were gospels, genre in itself.

2. now the question is - does a gospel have to be historic?
 
Nov 2016
890
Germany
#97
2. now the question is - does a gospel have to be historic?
One way to interpret the gospels is this: In the 2nd century, there were various groups within Jewish culture (also abroad) whose practices differed from those of the Jewish mainstream and which were also in conflict with each other. In order to support their own position, apologetic texts were written in which a founder figure (Jesus Christ) appeared, who was put sayings into his mouth to justify the position of the group (on whose behalf the text was written). It is possible that such a founder figure, a Jewish rebel, may have existed before, but he was subsequently mythically decorated by giving him traits taken from the Hellenistic religions, and possibly given a mythical name, i.e. ´Joshua´ (= Jeshua), after the general of Moses who allegedly led the Hebrews to Canaan after Moses´ death.

With these fictional flashbacks (= Gospels) the authors naturally did not take historical truth exactly to heart, but rather their method was to establish a fictional narrative around some pseudo-historical key data (e.g. Herod, Pilate), the sole purpose of which was to legitimize the practices and views of their own group, insofar as it deviated from the Jewish mainstream and the other ´Christian´ groups. According to this theory, it is not the founder figure whose views were adopted by later Christian groups, but the views of these groups that were put into the mouth of a former founder figure.

Does Mark, for example, report on the basis of eyewitness accounts, or does he present events and conversations as he imagined they should have happened? The argument of traditional Christians is that there were enough eyewitnesses to bear witness to what happened. However, this argumentation is circular: it presupposes the historicity of the scenes, including eyewitnesses, instead of warranting them.

The argument that the reports of the hearings before the high priest and Pilate could not have been invented because of their liveliness is therefore of no use. Examples of invented dialogues and historically questionable descriptions can be found in Roman historiography, e.g. in Livius. If Mark (and the other evangelists) took a liberty in the design of his material, which from today's point of view has nothing to do with historical meticulousness, then he was in line with the trend of that time.

One only has to look at the Luke gospel, which is full of unbelievable miracles, in which the author says at the beginning that everything reported was researched in detail. So there was a claim to historical authenticity, but there was a huge lack of implementation, because the audience did not apply excessively strict standards in a time when most people just believed what they wanted to believe (wishful thinking) without requiring evidence.

Luke 1:1:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,083
Dispargum
#98
1... Apparently gospels were not histories in that sense. They were gospels, genre in itself.

2. now the question is - does a gospel have to be historic?
Today, many people find it easier to justify their faith if they believe the Bible to be historical. It was the same in Luke's day. He claims to be writing history so that people will get the theology correct. I think MG1962 came close when he said the Gospels were theological teaching tools, not history. Luke is attempting to do both, but he did not have to. A theological teaching tool does not have to be historic.

I have earlier described the Gospels as legendary. They're not completely fictional. They are based on something, but the time elapsed between the deeds and their recording is too great for us to believe that the Gospels are an accurate and reliable account of what actually happened.

Luke might even be acknowledging this problem. He wants to get an account down in writing so that the theology can become permanent and stop evolving the way oral traditions do. His references to having "carefully investigated," the need for an "orderly account," and the need to 'know with certainty' all suggest that Luke is aware of confusion among the Christians of his day. The fact that "Many have undertaken to draw up an account" does not deter Luke. He thinks he can do a better job than the others.