what's the point? Atheists are too easily dismissing the concept of validity by just declaring that Bible has none and no book has any. they have no tetrameters for what validity means, totally ignore the fact that scholars have scientific rules for establishing validity and taking the Bible out of the picture as though it doesn't exist by just stipulating that it's a pile a crap and not bothering to deal with the huge amazingly immense body of scholarly work surrounding the Gospels. This little thumb-nail is not even scratching the surface. This is just to highlight how ridiculous the atheist position is to simply ignore this whole discipline that's hundreds of years old and well proved.
Eight levels of Verification for Gospels underrigd belief in Res.
This post first saw life as an answer to other arguments I was making on the "other" board. It refers to things I have already documented and the names of the scholars I use to document them.
The argument it backs is this:
(1) There's real strong evidence to suggest that the stories that became the synoptic and John were told in the original community under controlled conditions, where eye witnesses were plentiful and could help keep it all straight.
(2) These stores were first written must 18 years , not 40, not 60 after he events. Still a major source of eye witnesses lived in order to correct the statements should they be wrong.
(3) While this hypothesis can't be proved absolutely the evidence for it is strong enough to foster confidence in the hypothesis: the resurrection is historical validated.
(4) logicians accept placing confidence in a partially proved hypothesis. so when I say that the evidence is strong enough to place confidence that means it's logical to accept the belief, especially if one has modern confirmations.*
*religious experience lending credence to belief.
the eight levels of verification
8 levels of Verification for Gospels
None of the atheist has answered these levels. A few have tried. Most have not even mentioned them. Most are just asserting they "can't be true" without even considering the facts.
those who have given it a good shot include GS and Elf, maybe a couple of others I can't recall my apologies if I can't.
those who have not even attempted yet asserting I haven't offered any evidence, even though they haven not attempted an answer include "Big thinker"Of course and Maybrick.
following is a summary of the sources I used. most of you were not willing even look at the links.
I list only 6 numberically the other 2 are a and b and c under Pauline.
1) The original pre Mark redaction
Sources of proof include Koester's book Ancient Christian Gospels, Jurgen denker,
John D. Crosson,
Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte, 646
Peter kirby says its consensus in the field.
(2)the Pauline corups
....(a) what he got form people who were there
Quoting Paul himself: quotes James, the Jerusalem church's creedal formula and hymns.
....(b) his saying source.
synoptic saying source
........(c) the chruch tradition he learned in Jerusalem
(3) extra canonical Gospels such as Peter and Thomas
Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha 1.96
Charles Hendrick and Paul Mirecki
Ron Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press 1982), pp. 23-37.)
Peter KIrby's site "Gosepel of Thoams"
Stephen J. Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus
Stevan L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained (Skylight Paths Pub 2002)
(4) Oral tradition
Papias (from Eusebius)
Robert C. Cully,Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies
(5)The Gospels themselves which reflect the community as a whole, a whole community full of people who were there.
(6) writers who write about their relationships with those who were there.
1 Clement (the source)
Richardson and Fairweather, et al. Early Christian Fathers, New York: MacMillian, 1970 p.45-46).
F.F. Bruce, NT documents
Irenaeus, Agaisnt heresies and missing fragment supplied by Calvin ....college
Eusebius Ecclesiastic histories
Papias, fragments (Peter Kirby, Early Christian Writings, site:http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
Schoedel 1967: 91-92;
Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettonson, Oxford University press 1963, 27).
Ante-Nicene Fathers vol 1
Iranaeus describes works of Papis
Seteven Carlson's site:http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm
these face statements like "the Gospels have no backing" and telling me I haven't done anything to prove anything, this is not good enough see? It's' an untruth.
Here are three pages on religious A priori that apply the above outline and flesh it out with the actual quotations.