Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[Subduction Zone]

Yes critical analysis have been made by scholars.....sure the authors had an agenda (like in most historical documents)......but the gospel are good historical documents

Only Christian scholars seem to hold that opinion, and not all of them.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Will you ever answer my questions .?

You made a big deal because we don't know who the authors are......so should we reject all historical documents whose authors are anonymous?

All historical documents should be studied to see what they offer. The info IMHO should be taken with a grain of salt if the author is anonymous. It could be a case of a monk trying to pass off a manuscript he claims Caesar wrote. 3/4 of the new Testament is pseudepigraphs--that's a fancy word for "forgeries". That's a fact. Look it up. How in the dickens am I going to trust forged documents claiming to be the "INERRANT" word of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All historical documents should be studied to see what they offer. The info IMHO should be taken with a grain of salt if the author is anonymous. It could be a case of a monk trying to pass off a manuscript he claims Caesar wrote. 3/4 of the new Testament is pseudepigraphs--that's a fancy word for "forgeries". That's a fact. Look it up. How in the dickens am I going to trust forged documents claiming to be the "INERRANT" word of God.

You have to want to believe to believe

Sadly that is the truth. When you argue with "True believers" you will find that they are not trying to learn, they are only looking for excuses to believe.

 

[blü 2]

Ok but the authors where ether

1 witnesses.

None of the authors ever met an historical Jesus or claimed to have done so.

2 knew the witnesses.

The author of Luke, Luke 1:1-2, refers to many narratives of events "just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses" so that Luke's author will write "an orderly account". However, his gospel, like Matthew's, is essentially Mark re-edited and supplemented. If we assume he only meant Mark, Matthew, Q and some other notes, then Luke can be no more authentic than his sources.

The author of John (John 21:24) refers to his source, or some say, himself, as "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true." Since John was written in the 90s CE, sixty years or more after the traditional date of Jesus' death, it seems safe once again to rule out any eyewitness as his source ─ which also follows the template set by Mark, but at a further remove than Matthew or Luke, and with his own gnostic-flavored take and his own additional materials or traditions.

3 had access to reliable information

As above.

 

[Tiberius]

My "assumption" was justified in the OP.

We can assume that the authors honestly tried to report historical events (and not lies ) because:

1 the literally style of the gospels

2 the presence of embarrassing details......for more information go to the OP.

And both of those things exist in Star Trek. If you can use those stylistic features to justify your assumption, then I can use it to justify mine.

 

[Tiberius]

The same can be said about all historical documents.

Sure if you apply a position of extreme skepticism you can say that all was a made up lie.....but if we apply that degree of expetisism then we should drop all histoy.

How do you know that Alexander the grate was born in Macedonia? Maybe Plutarch (the historian) lied ... Given that he was an honest written he knew that he could have invented that lie without people notice it

Well then, we'd have a look to see if there are other sources that say the same thing.

If there are a dozen sources that all say the same thing. then I'd be more inclined to believe it. But you don't have that with the Gospels, do you? You have four sources, and they likely copied each other for large parts.

Well scholars would disagree with you......and honestly I would rather trust scholars than trusting you..

So you are saying that if I told you that I can turn into an eagle and fly around, you won't believe me, but if I told you I turned into an eagle, but forgot that my clothes to change shape with me, so when I landed in public and turned back into a person I was naked and everyone laughed at me and the police arrested me for public nudity, you'd be more likely to believe me?

 

[Tiberius]

Ok and what's the point with star trek?

The point is that Star Trek and the Gospels both have these things, but you have a double standard.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

You have to want to believe to believe

Sadly that is the truth. When you argue with "True believers" you will find that they are not trying to learn, they are only looking for excuses to believe.

And to shore up their doubts that clear evidence Jesus didn't exist has something wrong with it so that they can compromise their conscience and go on believing in him. What a shame that the evidence against Jesus' existence is so strong and the evidence FOR his existence is so flimsy as to be non-existent.

 

[nPeace]

Maya is the world of mortals. History is about events of mortals. Us.

Jesus is not Maya.

Sounds like babel. You don't seem to know where you are getting it from though. You did not say.

 

[nPeace]

On all the evidence, it is highly likely that Mark was written before Matthew.

Evidence? What evidence? Highly likely? Opinion then. Okay.

And from amongst all the evidence, Mark was written later than 70 CE since it purports to prophecy the sack of Jerusalem Mark 13:2 (and Matthew improves on this by specifying the destruction of the Temple Matthew 24:2).

Opinions, opinions. Nothing other than repeating nothings.

And Mark was written 75 CE or later since the author of Mark gets his "trial of Jesus" scene from Josephus' description of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem aka Jesus son of Ananias / Ananus in Wars VI.5.3, which is not available to the public before 75 CE.

Mark gets his "trial of Jesus" scene from Josephus? Wow. Which corner of the room were you sitting? Or do you have a time travel machine hidden away in your basement?

A thousand years after the event? I can't say that's a convincing start.

...and 2000 years after, you are trying to convince someone, with your empty folder... Ha Ha. Funny.

Eusebius is both sides of 300 CE, so about 240 years down the track. He had no real idea about who or when with the writing of the gospels.

... and you do Ha Ha Ha. Even funnier.

That's simply incorrect ─ see Matthew 24:2 as mentioned above.,

No it's not. You are. See Matthew 5:35; 24:16; 27:8 and 28:15

If I wanted to know more about Nebuchadnezzar I'd go to a reputable history book probably having started with Wikipedia. I'd accept what's written above to the extent that it agrees.

How does a reputable history book confirm that Nebuchadnezzar actually wrote anything?

 

[night912]

We know that the authors of star trek intended to write science fiction

Exactly, we know who the authors, writers of a science fiction, that's why we know that Star Trek WAS intended as fictional. If we didn't know that, some people might believe that the authors' intentions are to be accurately depicting prophecies of future events.

And since we don't know who the authors of the gospels were, some people, *cough* Leroy *cough* might think that the authors intended to report what actually happened.

 

[blü 2]

Evidence? What evidence? Highly likely? Opinion then. Okay.


Opinions, opinions. Nothing other than repeating nothings.

History is largely opinions. The facts my opinion is based on are considerably stronger than anything you've offered.

Mark gets his "trial of Jesus" scene from Josephus? Wow. Which corner of the room were you sitting? Or do you have a time travel machine hidden away in your basement?

Ah, I see you haven't bothered to check it out! Ah well. Theologian Ted Weeden points to twenty-four points in common between the two accounts.

...and 2000 years after, you are trying to convince someone, with your empty folder... Ha Ha. Funny.


... and you do Ha Ha Ha. Even funnier.

See? You're doing it again ─ having no reasoned reply to offer, you're reduced to empty mockery.

No it's not. You are. See Matthew 5:35; 24:16; 27:8 and 28:15

So what? That doesn't refute anything I said.

How does a reputable history book confirm that Nebuchadnezzar actually wrote anything?

What has that to do with what we're talking about?

 

[Heyo]

Heyo said: ↑
Mark gets his "trial of Jesus" scene from Josephus? Wow. Which corner of the room were you sitting? Or do you have a time travel machine hidden away in your basement?

Umm, I think we have a case of mistaken identity here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok and who is the author of this lie ?.....did the author of Luke is invented the lie or did he receive the lie from someone else?

Who says it's a single person?
Ever played the telephone game? Is it a single person in the chain that alters the story? Or is it rather each individual in the chain that misses / adds / changes a few details, which then accumulate as you move up the chain to end up with a story vastly different from the one it started out with?

I'm reminded of an incident when I was younger. There was a bakery a couple houses down the road from where I lived. One day, an ambulance and a firetruck were parked in front of the bakery. Some smoke was coming out of the boiler. There was some plastic melting going on etc. If left alone it would surely have started a fire. The fireman quickly resolved the problem and were on their way.

Couple days later I was at the local supermarket waiting in line. I overheard a conversation of some folks in front of me, discussing the event. After only a couple days, less then a week, the story had transformed into the bakery warehouse going up in flames and 2 people being taken to the hospital. I'm not joking. None of that actually happened. It was just some smoke in the boiler. Nobody got hurt. Nobody got taken away. There wasn't a single flame to be seen.

Was this the result of a single person changing that into the story of the all out fire with 2 people taken to the hospital? Off course not. It was instead a prime example of the telephone game.

...this is what probably happened
There was a Jesus who did some stuff that the disciples and people around interpreted as miracles......the founded a new religion and the authors of the gospels assumed that the miracle claims where true......... Do you have a better hypothesis on what probably happened?

It's impossible to tell. Consider my above example. And that's only after a couple of DAYS, when eyewitnesses, like myself, were actually around to correct mistakes. Yet, the story acquired a life of its own anyway. Things were added that never took place. There was no fire. There were no victims. I know because I saw them all standing in the street. I saw the ambulance take off without anyone in it except the driver and his companion. Yet in only a matter of days, the story changed to include 2 hospitalizations that never occurred.

So.... Some things might be rooted in true events, other things might be rooted in real events and be attributed to Jesus even though it concerned someone else, some other things will be as false as can be,....

Also, you make quite the assumption by saying that the original eyewitnesses interpreted it as miracles. You have no evidence for this at all. The only thing you know, is that decades later, people spoke of miracles.

Just like after a couple of days, people spoke of folks having to be hospitalized in my example. And these people weren't people that were actually there - because the people present at the event all knew that nobody was taken to the hospital and that the whole thing was much ado about nothing. The ambulance was only there because it's procedure. This was a completely fabricated detail that entered the story in only a matter of days. Imagine what it would be like if that story lived a life of its own for DECADES. And that during a time of no modern media, where fact checking can take place in the public sphere. Go to the next village and nobody there can double check your story.

I agree miracles should be dismissed unless additional and conclusive evidence is provided (but irrelevant for the purpose of the OP)

What is the purpose of the OP?
Because you claim they are reliable history, but you have just pretty much excluded a whole bunch of it by removing all the miraculous bits.

So I think you should reformulate it.
Into something like "the gospels are reliable history when it concerns those parts that can actually be verified and confirmed".

Which pretty much is simply stating the obvious.

It's like saying "Marvel is reliable history, as far as it concerns its references to verifiable events, places and people". Well duh.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok but the authors where ether

1 witnesses.

They weren't.

2 knew the witnesses.

They didn't.

3 had access to reliable information

Assumption - we don't know that.

Agree?

Not even a little bit.

 

[shunyadragon]

So should we reject all historical documents that where not written by witness?

There is a difference between rejecting all documents that were not written by witnesses, which historians do not do this, and putting ancient documents in the context of history as neither totally true nor totally false. Many ancient documents have unknown authors including many of the books of the Bible, and historians consider them as containing some historical facts and people, but not totally true.

 

[leroy]

No. They were almost certainly not witnesses. It is doubtful that they had access to witnesses, nor is there any reason to believe that they had access to reliable information.

Tell me, did you follow the election we just had?

Wait a minute, why don’t we deal with the topic that we were discussing a few days ago, rather than changing the topic?

1 You said that the gospel of Luke was not written by Luke, and perhaps written by many authors

2 I answered “So what”? that doesn’t invalidate any of my 2 points in the OP

Do you have anything to say about this?.........Do you admit that this particular objection (in red) is not a good objection against the OP?

After we finish with this specific point we can move to a different topic.

 

[leroy]

They weren't.



They didn't.



Assumption - we don't know that.


Not even a little bit.

The problem is that I already supported my claim, I already explained why the authors of the gospels probably had access to reliable information about Jesus and his life.

So deal with my arguments, and if you disagree explain why.

Only someone with access to reliable information could have known all the geographical, historical political and demographical details reported in the gospels. …. This by itself doesn’t prove that the gospels are true, but it proves that the authors where in a position to know what stuff about Jesus and his life. (weather if they told the truth or lied is a different issue)

 

[leroy]

All historical documents should be studied to see what they offer. The info IMHO should be taken with a grain of salt if the author is anonymous. It could be a case of a monk trying to pass off a manuscript he claims Caesar wrote. 3/4 of the new Testament is pseudepigraphs--that's a fancy word for "forgeries". That's a fact. Look it up. How in the dickens am I going to trust forged documents claiming to be the "INERRANT" word of God.

Again answer my question,… should we reject all sources that written by anonymous authors?

1 if yes then you have to drop nearly all ancient history

2 if no, then your objection is irrelevant. ….

I grant that the authors are anonymous, it´s just that I don’t see why is that a “problem”……….. Perhaps the author of Luke was a guy named “Joshua” So what?

So if you insist that the author being anonymous is a problem you have to justify and explain why is it a problem.

 

[nPeace]

History is largely opinions. The facts my opinion is based on are considerably stronger than anything you've offered.

You have not even stated any facts blu. It's more like your opinion is based on your opinions stated as fact,
If history is largely opinion, then there is no history. So No. You pick and choose what you want to accept.

Ah, I see you haven't bothered to check it out! Ah well. Theologian Ted Weeden points to twenty-four points in common between the two accounts.

Check what? That two people wrote something that was fact? That's what witnesses do blu. Wow.

See? You're doing it again ─ having no reasoned reply to offer, you're reduced to empty mockery.

That was the best reply for any circumstance like this... where people dismiss historians living centuries before them, to claim themselve historians on something they know nothing about. They are not even associated with anything to do with what those people did Where's my popcorn. LOL.

So what? That doesn't refute anything I said.

So... Jerusalem was still standing when Matthew wrote his account... which means he wrote it before 70 CE.
So yes, it does refute anything you said. Although nothing you said was even anything to refute.

What has that to do with what we're talking about?

Wow. If you don't know, why am I even talking to you. Have a wonderful day blu. LOL.