Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[leroy]

In my opinion and the opinion of many scholars, Mark was referencing the Old Testament particularly psalm 22 in order to give credence to his Christ tale by making it appear that Jesus was fulfilling Ot prophecy. But it's the old "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" problem: was Jesus actually fulfilling OT prophecy OR were the gospel writers just fashioning OT prosaic scriptures into literal events to make it appear Jesus was fulfilling prophecies? It's quite simple for a fiction writer to grab a line like "Why have you forsaken me" out of something written centuries earlier and then put it in the mouth of your main character as he hangs on a cross and say, "See! jesus said the same words as David in Psalm 22. Jesus is fulfilling David's prophecy" even though the psalm was never meant to be prophetic.

Excellent response, by the way.

Fulfilled Prophecies are too good to be true, historians know this , which is why we most be skeptical about those particular events……….. but so what?

It is still a historical fact that:

1 Jesus Existed

2 Did stuff that some interpreted as miracles

3 Was crucified and buried

4 He claimed to be divine , he claimed to have a special relationship with God

5 He had disciples

6 traveled around various towns in Palestine

7 was baptized by John the Baptist.

8 had brothers


Etc.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Fulfilled Prophecies are too good to be true, historians know this , which is why we most be skeptical about those particular events……….. but so what?

It is still a historical fact that:

1 Jesus Existed

2 Did stuff that some interpreted as miracles

3 Was crucified and buried

4 He claimed to be divine , he claimed to have a special relationship with God

5 He had disciples

6 traveled around various towns in Palestine

7 was baptized by John the Baptist.

8 had brothers


Etc.

Well, we're back to this: please cite sources outside the Bible of people who saw Jesus do miracles, maybe even ascended into heaven, but preferably who saw zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem. I'll believe in Jesus if you can do that.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

ok support your claim

How can you agree they are fictional?

 

[leroy]

Well, we're back to this: please cite sources outside the Bible of people who saw Jesus do miracles, maybe even ascended into heaven, but preferably who saw zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem. I'll believe in Jesus if you can do that.

You arbitrarily decided that only sources outside the bible are “good enough”

 

[leroy]

How can you agree they are fictional?

If any of points 1 or 2 form the OP is wrong, I would be convince that it is fiction.

 

[Valjean]

ok support your claim

Are you not reading the posts?

 

[blü 2]

The only point that I made is that the 90s is not too late for eye witness authorship………….do you grant this particular point?

Given an historical Jesus, it's not impossible. But it's not indicated by the texts. In John the narrative frame is still Mark, the magical stories are plainly as unhistorical as ever, and so on.

 

[Valjean]

Well support your assertion, what is your evidence that these are fairy tales? …………..for example would grant that Exodus is a Myth, but we have good positive reasons to make such a claim , cn you do the same with the gosplels?

There is no EVIDENCE that the Gospels are truth. There is no third party corroboration, and the stories, like fairy tales, are fantastical; they would not be believed if someone reported them today.
These are the same reasons we don't believe the fantastical tales of Erewhon, The Illiad or C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy.

Moreover, linguistic, archaeological, historical and textual analysis have convinced experts in these fields that much of these works is fabricated, edited, or miscopied, and that many of the authors/compilers had agendas.

You keep asking for evidence of this. It's been given you, but you've been quibbling, whilst ignoring the most salient points.
You're perfectly capable of researching these yourself, now they've been pointed out to you. You have access to a computer and, presumably, a library.

Presumably, as a Christian, the veracity of the Gospels is important to you, since you believe the future of your eternal soul is in jeopardy if you stray from the correct path. As a Christian, this is the very purpose of your existence.
Don't say you can't be bothered. I should think salvation from a lake of fire would be more than enough motivation to thoroughly investigate the doctrine on which you're staking everything.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

If any of points 1 or 2 form the OP is wrong, I would be convince that it is fiction.

Silly me! I just noticed that YOU are the OP. Now it all makes sense.

I don't believe the writers had reliable sources. They had no eyewitnesses and they certainly didn't have any written records from which to draw, given that the gospels were written up to a 100 years after the facts.

 

[leroy]

There is no EVIDENCE that the Gospels are truth

.

Yes, as has been justified in the OP, the evidence is

1 The authors intended to report what actually happened (they didn’t had the intention of lying)

2 the authors had access to reliable information about Jesus and his life

There is no third party corroboration, and the stories, like fairy tales, are fantastical; they would not be believed if someone reported them today.

A very large portion of the data in each of the gospels can be corroborated by other independent sources. Why wouldn’t you give the authors the benefit of the doubt on those details that can’t be corroborated?

For example:

- according to the bible Jesus had a brother named james

- we can verify that claim with other sources (Paul Josephus etc)

- The gsoples also mention other brothers names Joseph Judas and Simon

- We cant very the existance of these 3 brothers in other sources.

BUT.....Why woulnt you give the Gosples the benefit of the doubt? if they got 1 brother correct why woudlnt they have the 3 brothers correct too?


If you have a problem with “miracles” then we can agree on the fact that Jesus did stuff that was interpreted as miracles by some people (nothing supernatural nor extraordinary there)

These are the same reasons we don't believe the fantastical tales of Erewhon, The Illiad or C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy.

if you provide evidence that:
1 The authors of these tales intended to report what actually happened (they didn’t had the intention of lying)

2 the authors had access to reliable information

then yes I woudl accept them valid historical sources.

Moreover, linguistic, archaeological, historical and textual analysis have convinced experts in these fields that much of these works is fabricated, edited, or miscopied, and that many of the authors/compilers had agendas.

Except for a few spelling mistakes and a few minor irrelevant details there is no mayor “editing nor fabrication” in any of the gospels. Feel free to show that the opposite is true.

You keep asking for evidence of this. It's been given you, but you've been quibbling, whilst ignoring the most salient points.

Would you give a specific example of “evidence” against the historicity of the gospels that I haven’t answered successfully?

 

[Subduction Zone]

.

Yes, as has been justified in the OP, the evidence is

1 The authors intended to report what actually happened (they didn’t had the intention of lying)

2 the authors had access to reliable information about Jesus and his life





A very large portion of the data in each of the gospels can be corroborated by other independent sources. Why wouldn’t you give the authors the benefit of the doubt on those details that can’t be corroborated?

For example:

- according to the bible Jesus had a brother named james

- we can verify that claim with other sources (Paul Josephus etc)

- The gsoples also mention other brothers names Joseph Judas and Simon

- We cant very the existance of these 3 brothers in other sources.

BUT.....Why woulnt you give the Gosples the benefit of the doubt? if they got 1 brother correct why woudlnt they have the 3 brothers correct too?


If you have a problem with “miracles” then we can agree on the fact that Jesus did stuff that was interpreted as miracles by some people (nothing supernatural nor extraordinary there)





if you provide evidence that:
1 The authors of these tales intended to report what actually happened (they didn’t had the intention of lying)

2 the authors had access to reliable information

then yes I woudl accept them valid historical sources.




Except for a few spelling mistakes and a few minor irrelevant details there is no mayor “editing nor fabrication” in any of the gospels. Feel free to show that the opposite is true.






Would you give a specific example of “evidence” against the historicity of the gospels that I haven’t answered successfully?

Nope, as usual your OP failed and there have been pages of people explaining your failure to you. At this point if you want a link to your failures I will simply link this thread:

Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

 

[leroy]

Silly me! I just noticed that YOU are the OP. Now it all makes sense.

I don't believe the writers had reliable sources. They had no eyewitnesses and they certainly didn't have any written records from which to draw, given that the gospels were written up to a 100 years after the facts.

100 years? most scholars would say between 40 and 70 years.............

There where eyewitness still alive when the gospels where written, the witness where there to ether corroborate the data, or expose the lies.

But even more important, most of the historical, geographical, demographic, archeological etc. data that is verifiable has been verified and it happens to be correct…. Only someone with access to reliable information would know all this stuff. Why not trusting these authors with the data that can’t be verified.

If the gospels claimed that Jesus had a brother named James, and we can verify that and confirm that it is true, why not trusting the gosples when they say that he had other brothers (Joseph Simon and Judas)?

 

[leroy]

Nope, as usual your OP failed and there have been pages of people explaining your failure to you. At this point if you want a link to your failures I will simply link this thread:

Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

BUT you won’t quote a specific failure right? As always your accusations are vague and unsupported.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

100 years? most scholars would say between 40 and 70 years.............

There where eyewitness still alive when the gospels where written, the witness where there to ether corroborate the data, or expose the lies.

But even more important, most of the historical, geographical, demographic, archeological etc. data that is verifiable has been verified and it happens to be correct…. Only someone with access to reliable information would know all this stuff. Why not trusting these authors with the data that can’t be verified.

If the gospels claimed that Jesus had a brother named James, and we can verify that and confirm that it is true, why not trusting the gosples when they say that he had other brothers (Joseph Simon and Judas)?

Because there's no outside sources unsullied by church influence to corroborate these accounts.

 

[leroy]

Because there's no outside sources unsullied by church influence to corroborate these accounts.

Well Jesus had a brother named James ….agree? we can corroborate this in both biblical and non biblical sources (Josephus for example)

So at least some claims can be verified…..agree?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Well Jesus had a brother named James ….agree? we can corroborate this in both biblical and non biblical sources (Josephus for example)

So at least some claims can be verified…..agree?

The Josephus reference to James seems to be authentic but that's a sliver to hang the authenticity of all 4 gospels on. I can't do it, leroy. Sorry.

 

[Valjean]

.

Yes, as has been justified in the OP, the evidence is

1 The authors intended to report what actually happened (they didn’t had the intention of lying)

2 the authors had access to reliable information about Jesus and his life

But these premises have been debunked. As I said, you're ignoring others' explanatory posts.

A very large portion of the data in each of the gospels can be corroborated by other independent sources. Why wouldn’t you give the authors the benefit of the doubt on those details that can’t be corroborated?

For example:

- according to the bible Jesus had a brother named james

- we can verify that claim with other sources (Paul Josephus etc)

These aren't first person sources, nor have they been corroborated by disinterested third parties. Their claims are, at best, hearsay -- as has been explained to you.

- The gsoples also mention other brothers names Joseph Judas and Simon

- We cant very the existance of these 3 brothers in other sources.

BUT.....Why woulnt you give the Gosples the benefit of the doubt? if they got 1 brother correct why woudlnt they have the 3 brothers correct too?

What does this have to do with the reliability of the Gospels? You're presuming they got one brother right. You're presuming they got Jesus right. The source itself is questionable, why would genealogical conclusions based on it be less so?
Interpretations based on apocryphal sources are, themselves, apocryphal.

If you have a problem with “miracles” then we can agree on the fact that Jesus did stuff that was interpreted as miracles by some people (nothing supernatural nor extraordinary there)

No, we can't. We can't assume anything. You haven't been reading the posts. You're still accepting the Jesus folklore as axiomatic. Any conclusions drawn from questionable premises are, themselves, questionable.
We know nothing for sure of who Jesus was or what he/they did. It's folklore all the way down.

if you provide evidence that:
1 The authors of these tales intended to report what actually happened (they didn’t had the intention of lying)
2 the authors had access to reliable information

then yes I woudl accept them valid historical sources

And these premises have been debunked. Read the posts!
We're questioning your premises. Why do you keep assuming we'd accept any conclusions based on them, however logical?
Defend your premises first, then propose corollaries.

Except for a few spelling mistakes and a few minor irrelevant details there is no mayor “editing nor fabrication” in any of the gospels. Feel free to show that the opposite is true.

It's been shown you. Sources have been cited. You choose to ignore them.

Would you give a specific example of “evidence” against the historicity of the gospels that I haven’t answered successfully?

PLEASE -- stop it. Stop pretending you haven't been given the evidence. READ THE PREVIOUS POSTS!

 

[Valjean]

The Josephus reference to James seems to be authentic but that's a sliver to hang the authenticity of all 4 gospels on. I can't do it, leroy. Sorry.

Josephus was a reporter, not a witness. He reported what he heard being discussed on the streets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BUT you won’t quote a specific failure right? As always your accusations are vague and unsupported.

No, because you will simply deny it when it is explained to you. And it is a false claim to say that my refutations are always unsupported. I refuted you plenty of times with resources. But of course you broke the rules of polite discourse.


When you start to own up to errors then you your demands for refutation will have some teeth in them. But when you ignore all corrections you make that argument toothless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Josephus was a reporter, not a witness. He reported what he heard being discussed on the streets.

Tacitus too. He reported that there were people that believed in Jesus. He did not support the existence of Jesus by saying that he saw him or that other non-believers saw him. The only support for the Jesus stories ultimately come from Christians themselves.