₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
The blacks have been in charge in SA for just three decades and you are ready to condemn them as useless. What is thirty years in the life of a nation - especially one just starting from such a long period of suppression?

That is just shallow and stupid, nothing else to add.

The blacks in south Africa were given something so great and wonderful but it took them only 30 years to destroy it.
And we are supposed to praise them and blame the whites.

DeepSight:
Nothing to add. Goodluck.

The black have and continue to suffer the biggest racism from the left.
From slavery to segregation and now to indoctrination and Morden segregation.
What good has the left ever done for the blacks?

DeepSight:
Nothing to add. Goodluck.

I don't need you to add anything.
I am just pointing out the faults in you mentality so others can learn. Good luck my boy.

DeepSight:
The blacks have been in charge in SA for just three decades and you are ready to condemn them as useless. What is thirty years in the life of a nation - especially one just starting from such a long period of suppression?

That is just shallow and stupid, nothing else to add.

It doesn't take any special talent to complain and find faults like the left does for the blacks.
But it takes a lot to find solution and to build institutions that work.
The left complains of a black wall street that was burnt 100 years ago but none of them talk about rebuilding it now that the climate is much more favourable to blacks
Don't complain if you don't want to fix it.

DeepSight:
The blacks have been in charge in SA for just three decades and you are ready to condemn them as useless. What is thirty years in the life of a nation - especially one just starting from such a long period of suppression?

That is just shallow and stupid, nothing else to add.

3 decades of uselessness. Wasted decades.
Imagine the great things they could have achieved if they took responsibility and decided to build rather than destroy.

DeepSight:
The blacks have been in charge in SA for just three decades and you are ready to condemn them as useless. What is thirty years in the life of a nation - especially one just starting from such a long period of suppression?

That is just shallow and stupid, nothing else to add.

I once asked DeepSight what more the US should do for the blacks, he couldn't answer.

The leftists are the biggest problems the blacks have. No racism is worse than taking away the individual and collective responsibility of people.
They tell the blacks, "You are poor so you can be excused for being violent, killing your babies, abandoning your child.
But blame the white man and ask him to fix you.
How about telling the black man "the whites are not holding you back. You are the cause of your backwardness and only you can fix you.

TV01:
Please stop.

I've already pointed out the shallowness and ultimate futility of your argument.
https://www.nairaland.com/4508641/american-politics-thread-trump-47th/6045#139313829\

Firstly, no one denies there has been historic injustices, or even ongoing discrimination against minorities. That does not mean that there are no in-group pathologies that are hampering FBA's and those should not be addressed.

Secondly, that's not even proof that extant discrimination s the major factor holding FBA's back. Other minorities are able to rise above and flourish despite disadvantages. And, FBA's would be served better by striving against all odds and not cloaking themselves in the cape of victimhood - hint, it's not a superpower. It's an enervator, a block to self-reflection and only serves to widen the gap.

Thirdly, your "it's all about historic injustice and can't be solved until an unquantifiable amount of time has passed, robs them of the moment, the ability to seize the day, absolving them of the responsibility to make real progress under their own steam - regardless of what others do, say or think of them.

As does your "all the causal factors are external to the people and have been explained by scholarly research". Not too mention your "blacks can;t flourish until racism ceases to exist. Because Juice don't lead in pretty much everything of note, despite being fewer than FBA's and literally having half the world against them.

The bolded is the hallmark of a real people, a viable nation. It's why nonsense talk of carving out a self-sustaining black nation within the US is the most laughable pipe dream.

Listen carefully. To live in a developed country FBAs need white people and the order and structure they afford. They (FBAs) simply don't have the collective wherewithal or critical mass as it stands to go it alone. And deep down they know it - and so do you, and all those who flee native black countries for western nations .


TV

..and don;t think I haven;t noticed how you never answer questions

People like Deepsight and his gang think that the black solution should come from a change in behaviour of the whites. But that's a wrong, lazy and irresponsible way to view the world.

Can blacks be great? Yes but only when they take responsibility and start making the necessary changes.

Yes there have been historic injustice done to blacks but I am more impressed by the historic victories given to blacks.

Slavery was ended , segregation was ended, apartheid was ended. The only question now is what do we do with these victories?

Explore2xmore:
Hey gotta disappoint you, I didn’t invent those criteria. Theologians and religious scholars have historically used them to assess prophetic legitimacy across traditions.
You asked for an example, and the Torah presents a strong case with a named prophet, public revelation at Sinai, documented miracles, and an entire nation framed as collective witness. The authority claim is grounded in something beyond the text merely asserting itself.
The Quran is another discussion entirely.
But the core issue remains unanswered; what external verification establishes New Testament divine authority beyond its own internal claims? Saying I didn’t create the criteria doesn’t solve the problem it just confirms the criteria exist, and the NT still has to meet them.

First, you are saying that we should again go back to scholars to determine the divine?

I am such that there is no academic discipline than can prove God or His words.

But then, I need to understand how Paul's experience for example bears less spiritual weight than Moses the Torah or Mohammad of the quran.

Mohammed for example claimed he saw an angel. The things he claimed the angle told him were written after his death as the quran.
Paul saw Jesus Christ and his writings make up a large chunk of the new testament.

I am no scholar so please explain to me how Mohamed had greater divine authority than Paul.

What more did Mohamed do to make him more qualified than Paul? I will argue that Paul's writings hold mor authority as the quran didn't come directly from Mohammad.

The quran is a product of what other men claimed Mohamed said.

Let's look at the line of authority.
God to Paul then to the rest of us.

In Mohamed case
God to an angel to Mohammad to the writers of the quran then to us.

Then new testament has multiple independent witnesses who witnessed Jesus Christ and wrote about Him.
Peter
Paul
John
James
Paul
Matthew

The quran is just Mohamed. No other person saw what he claimed to see.

LordReed:
I already agreed to that. You are yet to prove your case, so do so and I will apologise.

This is what you agreed to

LordReed:
I already agreed to that. You are yet to prove your case, so do so and I will apologise.

Please go back are read what you agreed to

LordReed:
OK I accept that homicide is the leading cause of death for black males age 15-24 in the US. Now show me where it says "The leading cause of death of young black men in the US is gun shot from another black man."

One thing at a time. I will show you but first you have to apologise and promise to stop being lazy and always do your research before opening your mouth.
You agreed to this remember

LordReed:
I agree.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/ss/ss7305a1.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com

It's a very long article but below is a snapshot from the article

LordReed:
Click the link to the data from CDC and post it here.

I have already given you one reputable site a very liberal sites and a snap shot from my search result.

I will provide the CDC link on one condition.
After you learn that the number 1 killer of young African American men in the US age 14 to 34 is homicide, you will apologize to me and promise here on nairaland never to be lazy again and that you will always carry out your research before typing.

Do you agree

LordReed:
This is what I am talking about with misinformation campaign. You've been brainwashed into thinking that "The leading cause of death of young black men in the US is gun shot from another black man." If I asked you to produce the data that supports this now you will start chewing mouth.

Meanwhile, here is data from 2021. Homicides are the SIXTH leading cause of death in black men.

At least do a proper research. I said the leading cause of death among young black males.
Here is the stats from the CDC.
For Black males aged 15–34, firearm homicide rates are significantly higher than any other cause of death, including accidental injuries or health-related issues like heart disease.


https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/gun-violence-in-black-communities/

Moral of the story, study before coming out to say what you don't know.

And you are welcome

Explore2xmore:
Good. Then the categories must stay separate. Academic history asks whether the Gospels are credible ancient sources for reconstructing parts of early Christianity? By normal standards, they are. But historical credibility is not the same as divine authority.
Divine authority requires a verification standard. Scripture is not usually accepted as revelation only because it claims to be. There is normally some external basis such as prophetic witness, preservation, miracle, public transmission, or direct authorization.
So the key question is simple:
What external verification establishes the New Testament’s divine authority beyond its own internal claims?

I am guessing it's you who decided that prophetic witness, preservation, miracle, public transmission, or direct authorization should be the s standard for divine truths right?

Please give me an example of a scripture that meets these your standards

9

Explore2xmore:
Like there's a particular response that satisfies you and gives you the impression I am calm. I am not uncalmed anyway.
Yes, by normal academic historical standards the Gospels qualify as credible ancient sources. That is not the dispute. But academic historical credibility is not the same as divine authority. Even your own framing admits those are separate questions requiring separate standards.
So the academic question is settled. The harder question comes next: what standard establishes divine authority itself, and who defines that standard without circular reasoning?

Good, to the next step.
Now divine authority simply means authority from God right?
So what are the standards God set for to prove devine authority?
And do you have any other writing as an example of divine authority?
Why I brought up academic authority was because your argument was not solely about divine authority. It was a mix of both so I decided to clear one at a time

Explore2xmore:
Hey it's your post. It shows the Gospels are accepted by historians as credible ancient sources describing a real first-century figure. That part is not controversial. But even your own AI drew a line between historical credibility and divine truth claims. It explicitly placed miracles, divine sonship, atonement, and resurrection outside what historical method can actually verify.
That distinction matters. A source can be historically valuable without being divinely authoritative. You’re affirming the first claim while quietly assuming the second even though your own entry conceded history alone cannot establish it. Now there is the issue. What can't be verified is derived from the NT.

Calm down. I am only going one step at a time.
Let's first clear the academic question. If it meets the standard of a historic document them we will move on the the divine authority.
So I just need to know we are on the same page.
To determine it a work meets academic standards, we have to use the standards set by historians and to determine if it meets divine standards, we will use the standards set by the divine.

So let's do one at a time.

Again I ask,
According to the standards set by academic historians, does the Gospels meet the standards as an acceptable work of history?

escortafrik:
Hello guys, I really need your advice because I’ve been turning this over in my head and I don’t want to make a mistake.

So a bit of background… I’m in my final year at the university, just trying to finish with good grades and figure out what’s next for my life.

A close friend of mine introduced me to her cousin a few months ago. He’s doing really well for himself, stable, calm, and very intentional in how he carries himself.

We got along pretty quickly and things moved from just talking to a serious relationship faster than I expected, but it has been good so far.

Now the situation is this… he wants me to move in with him.

At first, I thought maybe it’s just excitement and love growing fast, but he’s been consistent about it and says it’s because he sees a future with me and wants us to start building our life together properly. I do like him a whole lot , and part of me likes the idea of us being together in that way, like a real couple sharing everyday life.

But I spoke to my friends and they are not having it at all. They keep telling me that once I move in, it might reduce the chances of marriage happening, that men can get too comfortable and stop seeing the need to “formalise” things. Even his cousin who introduced us is saying I shouldn’t as well but I’m quite surprised because this guy has been so good to me in every aspect of my life.

Now I’m stuck in the middle. I don’t want to act based on fear, but I also don’t want to ignore advice that could save me from future regret.

So I’m asking honestly… what do you think I should do in this situation?

You already made the mistake by coming to Nairaland.

None of us know you nor your boyfriend but somehow, you expect people who don't know you guys to be able to advise you about moving in?

Sunshine34:
Young ladies, this is for you!!! 🤗

A woman arrived in a store wearing clothes that showed her body all too well. The shop owner, being a wise older man, took a good look at her, asked her to sit down, looked straight into her eyes, and said something she would never forget for the rest of her life.

“Young Lady, everything that God has made valuable in this world, is covered up and hard to see or find."

For example:

1. Where can you find diamonds?

• In the ground, covered and protected.

2. Where are the pearls?

• Deep in the ocean, covered and protected in a beautiful shell.

3. Where can you find gold?

• Underground, covered with layers of rock, and to get there you have to work very hard and dig deep.

He looked at her again and said, "Your body is sacred and unique to God."

You are far more precious than gold, diamonds, and pearls, therefore you must be covered too.

He then added: "If you keep your precious minerals like gold, diamonds, and pearls deeply covered, a “reputable mining organization” with the necessary machines, will work for years to mine those precious goods.

* First, they will contact your government (family),

* Second, sign professional contracts (marriage),

* Third, they will professionally extract those goods, and tenderly refine those precious goods. (marital life).

But if you let your minerals find themselves on top of the Earth's surface (exposed to everyone), you will always attract many illegal miners to come, exploit, illegally, and freely take those riches and leave you without the precious goods God gave you!

WOMEN, YOU ARE VALUABLE!! ❤

Remember - Class is more desirable than Trash.

Author - Diane Walls.

COPIED

Trust me, the people you intended this to reach would not even read it

Explore2xmore:
With the highlights of your post we have:

1. Your AI classification of the Gospels as theological biography, not neutral historical documentation

2. Physical archaeological evidence for Philips death remains but not Jesus thus winning.

3. The resurrection, crucifixion by Romans being a thing of belief with those who allegedly seeing him alive post crucifixion

4. The table shows historians CANNOT Prove:
Jesus was the Son of God
The miracles were supernatural
His death atoned for sins
The physical Resurrection itself

5. Acknowledgement of an unresolved evidential problem with the ending question

It seems you are not even understanding my very simple question.
Let me try to ask in the most simple way possible.
According to the standards set by academic historians, does the Gospels meet the standards as an acceptable work of history?

Nothing you wrote addresses the question. Please answer so we can move forward, we are still going around in circles.

Explore2xmore:
From your analysis which I hope you tested independently and I am glad you brought it up yourself. The AI summary actually concedes the central point while sounding supportive of the argument. It explicitly admits historical method cannot establish Christianity’s core theological claims of divine sonship, miracles, atonement, or resurrection. Those are not side issues; they are the foundation of the religion.
Its independent streams argument is also overstated. Mark is a surviving source, Q is a hypothetical reconstruction that has never been found, and John is a later theological tradition differing sharply from the Synoptics; one verified source, one inference, and one distinct tradition, not three equivalent independent witnesses.
The manuscript argument likewise confuses preservation with independence. Thousands of copied manuscripts can preserve a tradition accurately while still remaining dependent on the same underlying sources.?
And even the comparison to Philip II highlights the gap; for him we have inscriptions, coinage, and physical remains independent of literary tradition. The Gospels provide literary testimony plus limited external confirmation of background details, not independent corroboration of the narratives themselves.
So the historical case for Jesus’ existence and probable execution was never really the dispute. The issue is that historical method cannot establish the supernatural and divine authority claims built on top of that history which the AI itself ultimately conceded.

I am not sure what you read but if it is what I sent, the Gospels meet the standards set by academia in evaluating ancient history. It's a pity you couldn't read that.

So unless you have created you own standards can we both agree that the Gospels meet the standards so we can move on with the next stage of the discussion?

Explore2xmore:
You just described how ancient history works: fragmentary records, lost originals, late manuscripts. That supports the point.
Historians reconstruct Philip II of Macedon through literary sources, including lost works like those of Theopompus preserved in later citations, alongside inscriptions, coinage, and archaeology. The picture holds because the literary material is reinforced by independent evidence outside the texts themselves.
That external layer is far thinner for the Gospels. Tacitus and Josephus confirm that Jesus existed and was executed. They do not independently confirm the resurrection narratives or the Gospel accounts themselves. Even the claim about first century testimony needs caution. Paul the Apostle writes in the first century, but gives no biography of Jesus’ ministry, and Gospel dating itself is still debated among critical scholars.
So the issue is not dismissing the Gospels. It is applying the same historical method used elsewhere. And unlike Philip, the Gospels carry a theological claim of divinely guided preservation, yet Jesus left no authorized written account and commissioned no official record before departure.
You cannot apply historical criticism to Philip, then suspend it for the Gospels.

We have been going round in circles so I presented the question to AI below are some of the results.

When historians compare the Gospels to the records of **Philip II of Macedon**, they are weighing two different types of historical evidence: **Manuscript Tradition** (the copies we have) vs. **Contemporary Attestation** (eyewitness accounts).

Both are accepted as describing real historical figures, but they meet different professional standards.

### 1. The Standard of "Real Historic Work"

In academia, "History" (*historia*) is a specific genre.

* **Philip II:** Meets the formal standard of Greek historiography. Writers like **Theopompus** and **Ephorus** wrote with the intent of recording political and military history. They cited sources, analyzed motives, and followed a chronological "cause-and-effect" structure.
* **The Gospels:** Fall into the genre of **Greco-Roman Biography** (*bios*). Their goal wasn't to provide a neutral political history of Judea, but to reveal the character and teaching of a single person.
* **The Verdict:** Historians treat the records of Philip as better for reconstructing **political events**, but they treat the Gospels as highly reliable for reconstructing the **social and religious atmosphere** of 1st-century Palestine.

---

### 2. Which has more Evidence?

The answer depends on whether you value the **quantity of copies** or the **closeness of the authors**.

#### **A. The Case for the Gospels (Quantity & Timing)**

The Gospels have a massive lead in terms of "Manuscript Evidence."

* **Earliest Fragments:** We have fragments of John ($P^{52}$) from within **30–50 years** of its writing.
* **Volume:** There are over **5,800** Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
* **The "Gap":** The time between the events (c. 30 AD) and the first full biographies (c. 65–90 AD) is only **35 to 60 years**. This is considered a "heartbeat" in ancient history.

#### **B. The Case for Philip II (Eyewitnesses & Physical Evidence)**

While we have fewer books about Philip, the quality of the "links" is sometimes seen as stronger by secular historians.

* **Living Witnesses:** We know for a fact that **Theopompus** lived at Philip’s court. While his original books are lost, his eyewitness data is the "DNA" inside the later histories we do have.
* **Physical Proof:** This is where Philip wins decisively. We have the **Tomb of Philip II** at Vergina. We have his actual bones (showing a battle-scarred eye socket that matches historical accounts), his golden crown, and his armor.
* **Epigraphy:** We have stone inscriptions from Philip's lifetime (treaties and decrees) that mention him by name.

---

### 3. Direct Comparison Table

| Feature | The Gospels (Jesus) | Records of Philip II |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Best Primary Author** | Matthew (Apostle/Eyewitness) | Theopompus (Eyewitness) |
| **Earliest Biography** | ~35–40 years after death | Written during his lifetime |
| **Earliest Surviving Copy** | ~100–150 years after death | ~1,000+ years after death (medieval copies) |
| **Number of Manuscripts** | 5,800+ (Greek only) | Dozens to hundreds |
| **Archaeological Proof** | Locations (Pool of Siloam, etc.) | Actual Body, Armor, and Inscriptions |

---

### Summary: Which is "Better" Evidence?

If you are a **Manuscript Scholar**, you would say the **Gospels** have more evidence because the gap between the event and the oldest surviving physical book is much smaller, and the number of copies is overwhelming.

If you are an **Archaeologist or Political Historian**, you would say **Philip II** has more evidence because we have his physical remains and contemporary inscriptions that prove his existence and actions without relying solely on later religious copies.

**In the eyes of modern history, both are considered "demonstrably real."** No serious historian doubts the existence of Philip II, just as no serious historian doubts that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who was executed in Roman Judea.

Since we have the physical tomb for Philip but only the "empty tomb" narrative for Jesus, does the lack of physical remains for Jesus make his historical record feel less "proven" to you, or does the massive number of early manuscripts compensate for that?

From the above, it's absolutely clear that the bible meets the standards set by historians for proving ancient text.


This again from AI

The Gospels meet the professional standards used by historians to establish ancient history, though they are treated with the same critical scrutiny as any other ancient text. In historical circles, "proving" something from the ancient world doesn't mean reaching 100% certainty, but rather establishing **historical probability**.

Historians use a specific "toolkit" to evaluate the Gospels. Here is how they measure up against those standards:

### 1. The Standard of Early Attestation

Historians prefer sources written closest to the events they describe.

* **The Standard:** For most ancient figures (like Caesar or Alexander), our best sources were written 100 to 400 years after their deaths.
* **The Gospels:** Mark was written roughly **35–40 years** after Jesus’ death, and John roughly **60 years** after. In the context of ancient history, this is considered an incredibly narrow gap. It means the accounts were circulating while eyewitnesses were still alive to correct or challenge them.

### 2. The Standard of Multiple Independent Sources

If multiple people from different places tell the same core story without "cheating," the story is likely true.

* **The Evidence:** Historians see at least three independent "streams" of tradition in the Gospels: the **Markan** tradition, the **"Q"** source (shared by Matthew and Luke), and the **Johannine** (John) tradition.
* **The Result:** When all three streams agree on core facts—such as Jesus being a teacher from Nazareth, having a reputation for miracles, and being crucified under Pontius Pilate—historians consider these facts **"historically certain."**

### 3. The "Criterion of Embarrassment"

This is one of the most important tools for a historian. It states that if a story contains details that are awkward or "bad for PR," it is highly likely to be true.

* **The Evidence:**
* The disciples are often portrayed as cowardly, slow-witted, and unfaithful.
* The first witnesses to the resurrection were women (whose testimony was not legally valid in 1st-century Jewish courts).


* **The Logic:** If the early Church was simply "making up" a legend to gain followers, they would have made the disciples look like heroes and the evidence look more legally "perfect."

---

### 4. Archaeological Consistency

A historical document is more credible if its "background noise" (geography, local customs, and politics) matches the physical evidence.

* **The Evidence:** The Gospels accurately reflect the complex political tension between the Roman governors and the Jewish Sanhedrin.
* **Specific Finds:** The discovery of the **"Pilate Stone"** in Caesarea (proving Pontius Pilate was a real "Prefect" and the **Caiaphas Ossuary** (the bone box of the High Priest) confirms that the characters in the Gospel narrative were real historical figures in the correct positions of power.

---

### 5. What Historians *Don't* "Prove"

While the Gospels meet the standards for proving the **history** of Jesus' life, historians differentiate between **historical events** and **theological claims**:

| Historians CAN Prove (Standard Met) | Historians CANNOT Prove (Outside the Scope) |
| --- | --- |
| Jesus was a real man from Nazareth. | Jesus was the Son of God. |
| He had a reputation for performing miracles. | The miracles were actually supernatural. |
| He was executed by the Romans. | His death atoned for the sins of the world. |
| His followers *believed* they saw him alive. | The physical Resurrection itself. |

### Summary

If a historian were to reject the Gospels as "unreliable" simply because they were written 40 years late or because they have minor discrepancies, they would also have to reject almost everything we know about **Socrates, Tiberius Caesar, or Hannibal.**

By the standard "rules of the road" for ancient history, the Gospels are viewed as high-quality, early sources that provide a reliable window into the life and impact of a 1st-century Jewish man.

Do you think the religious nature of these books makes it harder for people to see them as "history," even when they meet the professional standards?

So unless you don't agree with historians and you have your own standards, you are wrong.

MrEar:


Take it easy on him. He is in a state of confusion.

And by the way he is not a jw. His own members have rejected him here.

Honestly I don't know what MaxInDHouse is. He has been disowned by a JW member and now he is telling me that their online beliefs are different from their offline beliefs as if that's a wonderful thing.

Maybe he is just out to discredit the group from within but then, since no other member of the group is offering a different argument, I tend to believe him. But honestly, I am not sure.

MaxInDHouse:
You quote scriptures without knowing its practical application!😂

Jesus wasn't taking about understanding his message rather how easy the life of his disciples will be after getting the sense of his message and applying it. Isaiah 48:17-18🙂

He was actually speaking about His gospel. So again you are wrong.

Christ did not have 2 different messages, an online and an offline.

If what you teach offline is different from what you teach in your meetings, then you are a deceptive cult.

You deceive people to enter your meetings with one message and when they enter, you sell them your real message.

Explore2xmore:
Let us run the comparison consistently.
Historians accept Philip II because multiple independent traditions converge. Diodorus, Plutarch, and Arrian drawing from earlier sources like Theopompus, Callisthenes, and Ptolemy alongside inscriptions, coinage, and Persian and Egyptian records. Nobody treats Plutarch as infallible; his claims are critically weighed against external evidence. That is the standard.
The Gospels are not in the same evidentiary position. Matthew and Luke rely heavily on Mark, often word-for-word, so the four independent sources argument is overstated. John is later, openly theological, and written with an explicit faith-producing purpose. The texts are formally anonymous, with authorship assigned later by church tradition through figures like Papias and Irenaeus, writing generations after the fact.
There is also the issue of distance. The Gospels were written decades later, in Greek, about an Aramaic-speaking figure, by authors removed from the events by at least a generation. Oral tradition may explain how material was transmitted, but transmission is not the same as verification. It does not restore eyewitness status or source independence.
Then there are the contradictions in conflicting genealogies, differing resurrection accounts, and the Quirinius census problem. These are not minor copyist errors, they are structural contradictions on historically testable claims. It is worth noting that the nativity narratives are one of the few areas where Matthew and Luke are actually independent of Mark and rather than producing corroboration, they produce conflicting chronologies. Matthew places Jesus under Herod, who died in 4 BC, while Luke ties the birth to Quirinius' census in 6 AD. Attempts to resolve this by proposing an earlier governorship for Quirinius remain speculative and are rejected by most critical scholars, including conservative historians like F.F. Bruce. Independence only strengthens a claim when sources converge. Here it compounds the problem.
And unlike Philip's reign where inscriptions, coinage, and administrative records exist, the specifically miraculous Gospel claims lack contemporary external corroboration. Historians may acknowledge that early Christians believed in the resurrection, but mainstream historical methodology does not treat the resurrection itself as a verified historical event. Belief in an event and verification of the event are not the same category. So the issue is not that historians apply harsher standards to religion. It is that the Gospels are being examined by the same historical methods applied to every ancient source. They are simply not exempt from scrutiny, and on source independence, authorship transparency, proximity, corroboration, and internal consistency, they perform less strongly than the classical sources used for Philip II.

There are far less evidence of the existence of Philip. And there is zero existing independent coverage of him that is within 400 years of his reign.
You talked about Theopompus. But we don't have a single existing record of Theopompus.
Theopompus's primary work, the Philippica (a massive 58-volume history), is believed to be lost.

The earliest kept writings of Philip are found in Egypt (like the Oxyrhynchus Papyri) that date to the 2nd or 3rd century AD.

Let's compare this to the bible. This would be like someone commenting about the Book of John 400 years after Christ and we having zero records of the book of John.

The bible offers multiple witnesses. And there are many more first century writers of Christ. There is more more record from writers who live in the same century as Christ.

Philip unfortunately has not.
But somehow, you agree with historians about the existence of Philip.
You are not consistent.
One may feel this is all about fault finding.

MaxInDHouse:
Blame Jesus whose teachings is difficult for whoever refuses to see him as the best teacher. If you want to understand our teachings it's not just reading online you must be in our gathering to learn the practical application just as only those close to Jesus can explain his teachings because they always see him live by his teachings!🙂

Jesus Christ said, my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
But JW is saying, you can't understand our online message, we make our online message impossible to understand. You will only get the true message offline.
That's the opposite of Jesus Christ.

MaxInDHouse:
This is a lie because all churches do tell people to come and worship with them because their church is BIBLE BELIEVING whereas all churches claiming Christians use the Bible.

So stop deceiving yourself it's the same thing everywhere as long as you are not a member of a religion you can't understand what is being taught from afar:

So the disciples came and said to him: “Why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?” In reply he said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted. For whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them." Matthew 13:10-15

It's only those who comes back to Jesus that can understand the deep meaning of his message not all that listened to him. So it's still the same process!🙂

The summary of all you wrote is, you post online to confuse people hoping it would lead them to you offline.
What a strategy

Explore2xmore:
No, not fully and academic historians are clear on why.
The Gospels do not meet full source independence. Matthew and Luke demonstrably use Mark, sometimes word-for-word. That is not four independent eyewitness streams; it is one earlier source reused by later authors. Luke even states at the outset that he is compiling prior accounts rather than writing as a direct eyewitness and no serious scholar disputes that.
Authorship is another issue. The texts themselves are formally anonymous; the traditional names were attached later through church tradition, not identified by the authors inside the documents. Early figures like Papias and Irenaeus do attribute authorship, but they wrote generations later. Their claims reflect developing tradition, not contemporary documentation.
There is also the time gap. The Gospels were written roughly 40–65 years after Jesus’ lifetime. That alone does not automatically invalidate them, historians critically analyze many ancient sources with similar gaps. But when that delay is combined with theological investment, anonymous composition, and literary dependence between texts, the result is clear, the Gospels require historical reconstruction, not simple face-value reading.
So the scholarly consensus is not that the Gospels are worthless, far from it. They are valuable early Christian sources containing historical material. But they are not generally treated as four fully independent eyewitness histories. That is key to my interest.

So I take it that your answer is that the Gospels do not meet the standards set by academic historians, The same standards used to support the pharaohs, Alexander and the Chinese dynasties right?

But you did not in anyway show how they do not.
Let's make it very easy, you wouldn't find a Morden historian that contends that Philip II of Macedon is the father of Alexander the Great.
So show use how the histories of Philip II of Macedon qualify and the Gospels fall short.

This should be very easy for you.

MaxInDHouse:
Do Muslims read the Bible?
Do they quote it?

So how come they always misquote the Bible against the Bible?

Ọmọ our publications are known but whoever wants to understand how we apply what is written must attend our meetings that's why Paul said whoever doesn't attend our meetings is loosing our! Hebrews 10:24-25

What do you think is wrong if someone can't just read the scriptures and continue as a believers without attending meetings with Christians?🙂

So your point is that I misquoted your publication?
Because I can actually do a copy and paste.
When Muslims misquote the bible, we are able to easily point it out and prove it to them. We don't tell them that unless they come to church, they we not understand online publications.
The reason we publish online is so that people would understand us better not the opposite. But Una group na opposite

MaxInDHouse:
Continue dribbling yourself!😂

You are the one dribbling me. You claim that the teachings offline are different from the ones I am reading online. And, I know it is something you guys are capable of doing.
Person wey no fear Una no fit fear anything

MaxInDHouse:
Reading online defer from attending our meetings to know the practical application of what is in our publication so if you're not with us you can't understand what we teach in our midst!🙂

You mean you teach 2 doctrines, the online and offline?
So you represent the offline fraction on nairaland.

MaxInDHouse:
Continue deceiving yourself joh!😂

Are you saying that I made up the quotes from JW because I didn't.
The internet has everything, nothing to hide.