This is classic intellectual dishonesty in action...everyone get an eye full. My claim was that the bias inherent in the gospels made them unreliable as historical documents. I merely pointed out that by labeling them the "gospels" the anonymous author(s) have thrown objectivity out the window at the very start. They are believers and they want you (the reader) to believe as well.
Again...blatantly mischaracterized my argument. See above.
Citation please? I don't want to comment on the wrong reference...so include whatever you're referring to from here on out please.
The gospels are written with the intention of "selling" the reader on the divinity of Jesus...the answer here is rather obvious.
I didn't claim that every single line of the gospels is ridden with bias...I merely claimed that the bias that is in the gospels makes them unreliable. Once again, this is a rather sad attempt to mischaracterize my argument.
Also, it's my understanding that "recorded" implies that the authors of the gospels were there to witness the things they wrote about. Since we don't actually know who wrote the gospels...we cannot affirm this. What we do have are anonymous author(s) revising the religious story of their messiah....well after these events supposedly happened. Let's not pretend that anyone was there to record these "events"...anyone who was there and had such an opportunity decided not to record these events (including the jews and Romans within these stories). Any actual recording of these events would be the archeological find of the century...but, alas, after more than a millennia of searching, no such recordings have ever been found.
I really don't think that you do.
Irrelevant. We aren't discussing anti-theism or biographies.
Nope...not even close. I'm fully open to the existence of the "supernatural" (whatever you mean by that) just as soon as someone presents some evidence for it. I'm not holding my breath though...we both know you don't have any.
What data? You seem upset that I don't lend your religion's mythology any more credence than I do any other religion's mythology.
You haven't even told me what the gospels are a history of yet....it's the one question I needed you to answer before I can give you examples of bias that reduces their credibility. What's the problem? Did you think about it and realize that the gospels don't resemble any kind of historical document?
What are the gospels a history of? What is the "history" that you believe they accurately relate?
The gospels are narratives of the life, teachings, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ.
Believing something to be true does not make one an unreliable transmitter of the accounts they hold to be true.
If that were the case then I could dismiss everything you say as unreliable on the basis alone that you believe what you are saying is true.
You will have to demonstrate that we have good reasons to think the authors of the gospels and any other document that records the events surrounding the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus that corroborate the gospels, were unreliable transmitters of truth.
Saying they were biased is not enough. I can wholeheartedly agree with you that they had a bias. You are biased, I am biased, everyone has a bias. The question is not if there was a bias, but if the bias was justified. If what they recorded actually happened, they should have had a bias.
If you saw a man perform miracles, give sight to the blind, cause the lame to walk, raise the dead and then be crucified buried and then alive after all this having fulfilled the things He had said would happen before they even happened and you were not offended by this but wanted all men to know the good news that their sins had been born by Christ on the cross and that a way had been made for them to have a relationship with God, then you would shout this good news from the mountain tops and from every rooftop so that people would know.
You wouldn't sit around depressed with your mouth shut with your hands in the air saying, "it is hopeless to speak of these great things, for no one will believe me because they will think I am biased!"
That is simply absurd.
You spend a great deal of time here with what little hope you have attempting to convince people you have the truth. How much more would these men and women who were eyewitnesses of the most important events to have ever occurred in human history be all to eager to tell of what they had seen?
You approach the gospels as if they are unreliable and have no trouble finding reasons that sit well with you that support that conclusion.
I know they are reliable and see through your question begging.
I pray you meditate and examine your presuppositions and ask whether or not you really have good reasons to hold them.
You still have yet to provide one example of an instance where an author of a new testament book/letter has a bias that prevents him from accurately writing about what he writes.