Adamoriens wrote:Which assertion? After perusing my posts carefully I could find no such claim. I did claim that literal inaccuracy is possible. Since Lewis considers possibilities (liar, lunatic, or Lord) and excludes this one, the Trilemma seems to me fallacious.
For what reasons do you reject the literary accuracy of the New Testament?
WinePusher wrote:-There is no reason to think that the Apostles did not know Greek
-Greek was a dominant language during the Roman Empire, it is regarded as modern day english, a universal language that tied the empire together
-Greek Scribes could have supplemented parts of the Gospels that seem to be above and beyond Rudimentary Greek through oral dictation.
Adamoriens wrote:I think we're at an impasse here. Perhaps we could go through and discuss each gospel in detail? If you agree, we could start with the earliest, Mark.
I think this thread is a good place to talk about these issues. If you want to discuss the Gospels and their historical accuracy in detail then I'll try devoting more time to this thread.
Adamoriens wrote:I think it would be more fruitful to discuss any given gospel more closely. There are excellent reasons to think the Gospel of John was not written by an eyewitness or is not historically accurate.
Ok, present your reasons and I'll try to address them. I have already presented my reasons as to why John is appropriately considered to be both an eye-witness account and historically reliable.
WinePusher wrote:The "myth" position is extremely fringe and out of mainstream biblical scholarship. If you to regard the Gospel narratives as myth you would subsequently have to regard the Early Church persecutions and the extra-biblical references as myth.
Adamoriens wrote:I am not endorsing the full or partial "mythicist" position, although I think it is often misunderstood and caricatured.
The myth position, as I know it, is that the Gospels are concocted accounts that made up an imaginary figure called Jesus Christ. That clearly isn't the case, so those who take this position try to moderate themselevs by saying that only some parts are myth. Well, which parts would be considered myth then?
Adamoriens wrote:You seem to be making quite a few appeals to authority for someone who himself endorses a fringe position; namely, that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. I think I could name all the mainstream scholars who endorse this position on one hand.
Well, I just responded to Druijf who posed the same objection. There are scholars who specialize in the Gospels who believe that they are Eye-Witness Accounts.
Adamoriens wrote:What you have not done is responded to my question about the mass resurrection in Matthew. Does it appear to be legendary passage/fragment or not?
I would call this figurative language rather then myth. Yes, I do not think it actually, literally occured in the real world. But it does make sense when placed in the context of Jesus' death, who supposdley descended into hell after his death and liberated the souls down there.
Adamoriens wrote:I've considered this, but still do not however consider this hypocritical. No-one asks us to believe that Alexander really unraveled the Gordian knot or that he was born of a virgin. Christians make the claim that Jesus indeed turned water to wine or walked on the surface of a lake, and that he on several occasions revived dead bodies and that he was resurrected himself. Not only do Christians believe this, they often claim this is the only rational response to the evidence. I believe I am fully justified in lifting the bar. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Either the events happened or they didn't happen, there really is not room for moderation in this situation. The fact that they seem to be "extraordinary" events does not they require any more or less evidence then any other historical event would. If we compare the resurrection to another historical event that is accepted, and it has an equal amount or more evidence to support it's historicity, then there it should be taken literally.
Adamoriens wrote:If we took an even-handed approach and simply lay the Gospels alongside all other ancient historical sources (as I think we should) I think you'll find that the outcome would be very different from the one you desire.
Yes, they would have been written in a shorter amount of time to the events and the possibility of eye-witness authorship would not ruled out. But you can pick another historical source or event to compare the Gospels with and I'll debate it with you here.
Adamoriens wrote:Since you favor the Gospel of John, perhaps we could start a new thread under the title of "Is the Gospel of John an Eyewitness Account?" Maybe with something about historical reliability as the sub-heading, since that's really the heart of the matter. If you would rather I do the honours, PM me or respond here and I'll come up with sort of case against your proposition.
I think this thread is fine, lay outyour case and I'll respond to it here.