Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[shunyadragon]

No.

Documents never accounted for what mass of energy gone. What mass stone converted into it how much gas heavens was gone. As you never knew what it used to be.

Origin was never known.

Not coherent, and needs explanation. There is no evidence that the Laws of Nature and natural processes have ever change in history of our universe.

 

[lukethethird]

Give it up.
Your wacky ideas that the whole of the Gospel accounts was myth just doesn't stack up. You're just trying reverse a few crank fringe viewpoints in to your own ideas to bolster up your agenda, and it's failing.

Dude, I pointed out to you that the temple was destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked in 70CE and you responded with a "give it up" and I was as "pointless as a myther", just for pointing that out, and now you claim that I have an agenda. Oh well, I can't say I wasn't warned about internet forums.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so in other words you simply guessed that the Quran, had similar stuff, but you can’t prove it

No. I know it because I read it and know a thing or two about basic history.
Yes, the quran -just like the bible- includes real people, real events and real places. It recalls the history of mecca, medina, battles, etc.

It also, just like the bible, includes supernatural stuff.

It's you who thinks the bible is somehow "special".

………. Besides so what? If the Quran happens to have an equivalent amount of historical data I would consider it a “good historical documents” that wouldn’t not do anything to refute the OP

Except that it is clear that your OP is an attempt at attaching the supernatural claims to the verifiable claims. To argue that because it gets A and B correct, then C and D are likely also correct, to rationalize your religious beliefs.

If that isn't the end-goal here, then I wonder what the real purpose of your OP is.
If it just is that there are things in there that are verifiably correct - I don't think anyone would dispute that and you'ld just be stating the obvious.

That is wrong, we know from extra biblical sources that he was crucified, and that he had a brother named James.

There are exactly ZERO extra-biblical sources about Jesus.
People who are just repeating what christians believed a century after the facts do not count.

We've been over this. Repeating claims that one hears from others, aren't confirmations of said claims. They are just repeats thereof.

If you tell me you believe X and I then repeat it, then I'm not confirming X. Instead, I'm only confirming that you believe X.

But even more important you seem to have an arbitrary standard for some reason you decided to label “biblical sources” as bad and extra biblical sources as “good”

It's not arbitrary at all.
The bible is the claim. Verification of biblical claims must necessarily be extra-biblical. Unless you don't mind circular reasoning, off course.

….. the bible (new testament) by definition is a collection of the best sources related to Jesus, his life and his teachings.

It is not.

Imagine that you take the best sources for the life of Alexander the Great, and you put them all together in to one book and call the book “Alex” …. Then imagine how ridiculous an skeptic will sound if he says ohhh we can’t know anything about Alexander because we don’t have any good source outside “Alex”

1. Alexander the Great isn't the subject of a religion
2. There are many independent sources for Alexander the Great, which aren't merely repeats from claims coming from religious believers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

See what I mean.
That's exactly what I was saying.
Your analogies are always poor, because of two things.
1. They are always designed to fit your view, ane 2. Even when they fail, they always still support your view.
LOL.

And the point keeps flying higher and higher over your head.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Was the writer's goal to promote Christianity, or to speak the truth about what they had seen and heard?

The first.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is it any surprise you ignored my post here.

Tacitus is not a contemporary independent confirmation of Jesus.
It's instead just reporting on what christians believed.

I'm well aware that most scholars think a historical Jesus existing is likely. I agree with that.
But I see no reason to lie about the evidence to support that.

You do this all the time. Whenever sources refute your empy claims

None of what you wrote in that post refutes anything I was saying.

Instead it was a display of extreme intellectual dishonesty, which is why I didn't feel like replying anymore.

For example, your wacky claim that 75% of scientists are "creationists". I don't even know how to respond to such stupidity.

The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution theory. I'm talking +99%
So your claim that 75% of them are creationists is simply bizar and a testament to the amount of delusion (or deliberate dishonesty) that goes on in your head.

Here we go... again.
Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia.
Let's see you execute that trademark again. LOL

In that very link, it is made clear that the Josephus reference is likely a forgery and that the Tacitus reference is reporting on who christians are and what they believed.

What the Tacitus reference shows is that early christians believed in Jesus and his crucifiction. Tacitus doesn't question that because he knows that crucifiction was common and he has no reason to question it. But he is reporting what christians believed. He is not reporting Roman records. He is reporting about what christians believed. He is actually talking about christians and simply detailing who they are and what they believed.

IF there was no historical jesus, then still Tacitus would have written what he wrote - because he's simply explaining who christians are.

That is what I'm saying.

You don't seem to be understanding that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

........ so an HJ researcher has to delve much more deeply ........ right?
The trouble is that Jesus was only known about in Galilee for a few (11-12) months, and in Jerusalem for about a week. The Baptist was more widely known and for a slightly longer time, imo.

To make things harder still, most Galilean peasants (the majority of the people) were illiterate and they relied upon Oral Tradition to pass their accounts and histories down. And even when, eventually, an account was written down only one of the authors may have been a partial witness.

There are some 2nd century reports by enemies of Christianity about Jesus, and one that we know about from the 1st century in Josephus, although sadly some Christian/s messed about with it.

But even so, the majority of HJ 'peer reviewed' scholars who have researched HJ reckon that Jesus and the Baptist were real people. What do you think about their ideas?

I agree they were likely real people.

But I see no reason to lie about the evidence.

 

[oldbadger]

Dude, I pointed out to you that the temple was destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked in 70CE and you responded with a "give it up" and I was as "pointless as a myther", just for pointing that out, and now you claim that I have an agenda. Oh well, I can't say I wasn't warned about internet forums.

Duh.....
You can give up that point because we are talking about events at least 40 years earlier

Now you just stop putting words in my mouth.

In future just quote exactly what I have written and not your version, ok?

 

[oldbadger]

I agree they were likely real people.

But I see no reason to lie about the evidence.

Are you calling me a liar?
Well ..?

 

[rational experiences]

Not coherent, and needs explanation. There is no evidence that the Laws of Nature and natural processes have ever change in history of our universe.

Don't you mean mass of energy remains the same.

Yet you attack mass destroy energy in a conversion and just claim it goes into a lower form. Pretending energy itself never went anywhere.

Hence he says I can't hold energy as it is held by space.

Your own non coherent advice.

 

[lukethethird]

Give it up.
Your wacky ideas that the whole of the Gospel accounts was myth just doesn't stack up. You're just trying reverse a few crank fringe viewpoints in to your own ideas to bolster up your agenda, and it's failing.

Historians don't read fantasy fiction and garner history from them by removing the supernatural bits. We can't do this with fantasy fiction but if you insist that we can do this with the gospels because you insist they are different, then you have to admit that you are committed to fideism.

 

[joelr]

It's no good joelr.
All you do is wave a few scholar flags around, screaming ;'peer-reviewed!' and insisting that your cherry picked names have it right.

Ha! That's like a flat-earther saying "all you do is wave peer-reviewed science around".

Then you strawman the argument. It isn't "a few scholars". If there were other opinions in historicity I would have said so. Exactly like I said the current big debate is historicity vs mythicism. Historicity does not include taking the gospels as history even without the supernatural. So you have no scholarship to wave around. So your theory is crank.

And you insist upon dreaming up debating rules whereby you can win your very poor argument that all of the Gospels is myth. That's just an ignorant idea.... really.

And here comes the irony. You call it ignorant yet I'm going only by actual scholarship and providing endless streams of examples and papers. Not one single thing is my idea. These are facts pointed out by people who understand how to read myths and writings from the period.
You have nothing except to try to tear down my argument with literally nothing except your opinion.

Even worse is you can't even get my argument correct. I didn't say everything in the gospels are myth. There are real locations and possibly some real people. But it's a fact that the stories are written as myth. The version of Jesus in the gospels scores higher than King Arthur on the Rank-Ragalin mythotype scale. Therefore all of his actions were written to fulfill common mythical tropes. They are not historical.

Either you or @lukethethird challenhged me to show even one scholar that disagrees with the Myther viewpoint, so here are a few out of so many..... Now they all see Jesus differently, so please listen to me when I tell you that any school child can read the gospels, research what other history or archeology is available and make their decisions.

Whoops, you are responding to the wrong argument here? I already said the MAIN DEBATE IS HISTORICITY VS MYTHICISM. That means many historians DO NOT AGREE WITH MYTHICISM???? Are you dizzy?
But that doesn't mean the gospels are historical.

Your ideas about 'can't have a view if you haven't got a degree' (or whatever is just rubbish.

My idea? Wow, super strawman-y. I never said that. I said you cannot have a view if zero scholars support it. Then it's crank. You actually do need a degree to know how to do history and put forth papers for review. Then you can submit work and if verified it may change opinion.
Only with religious history do people deny scholarship. Do you think you will come up with a new physics theory or a new medicine without many layers of degrees and using all sorts of previous scholarship?

Here you go........ take your pick....... but you can't destroy them all, so you're both unlucky there. Change your minds about the mythical Jesus, I suggest.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
The historicity of Jesus relates to whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. Virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain

Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew and living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[15][16] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the gospels to him, while others portray his "Kingdom of God" as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[17]
The works of E. P. Sanders and Maurice Casey place Jesus within the context of Jewish eschatological
Dale Allison does not see Jesus as advocating specific timetables for the End Times, but sees him as preaching his own doctrine
Jesus as a pious and holy man in the view of Géza Vermes,
Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer and presents Jesus as a Hasid
Marcus Borg views Jesus as a charismatic "man of the spirit",
Both Sanders and Casey agree that Jesus was also a charismatic healer i
In John Dominic Crossan's view Jesus was crucified
Burton Mack also holds that Jesus was a Cynic
Wright's portrait of Jesus is closer to the traditional Christian views
Markus Bockmuehl and Peter Stuhlmacher support the view that Jesus came to announce
Gerd Theissen sees three main elements to the activities of Jesus as he effected social change,
Richard A. Horsely goes further and presents Jesus as a more radical reformer
Elisabeth Fiorenza has presented a feminist perspective which sees Jesus as a social reformer
Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography, painted Jesus as a devout student of John the Baptist
Professor Andreas J. Köstenberger in Jesus as Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel also reached the conclusion that Jesus was seen
Ben Witherington supports the "Wisdom Sage" view, and states that Jesus is best understood as a teacher of wisdom
John P. Meier's portrait of Jesus as the Marginal Jew
Hyam Maccoby proposed that Jesus was a Pharisee,
Morton Smith views Jesus as a magician,
It has been suggested by psychiatrists Oskar Panizza,[181][182][183] George de Loosten,[184] William Hirsch,[185] William Sargant,[186] Anthony Storr,[187][188][189] Raj Persaud,[190] psychologist Charles Binet-Sanglé[191] and others that Jesus had a mental disorder or psychiatric condition.[192]
Earl Doherty has written that Jesus may have been a real person,

I'm familiar with Doherty and JDC.
Guess what. None of these people think the gospel stories are reliable history.
Historicity means a man named Jesus lived and taught and we know very little about his actual life. They are all aware the gospels are highly mythic.
The Wiki page on historicity also says "little in the gospels is considered historically reliable".

None of these scholars did a historicity study on Jesus. They were working on the assumption that he was a real person.
The historian who actually looked into those assumptions has demonstrated they do not hold and were not looked into in the past because it would just **** off too many people to announce Jesus was entirely a myth.
Earl Doherty is now a mythicist. This article is outdated.

 

[joelr]

I don't diminish scholarship......

You just did.

I just realise that none of the scholars are in total agreement with each other and so walk my own line.

Dishonest. Physics has several interpretations currently (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Decoherance....) so do you just do your own physics and build your own technology unrelated to any other science? The medical community has many disagreements so do you make your own medicine and do your own surgery? Obviously that is absurd. This also applies to history. It's so absurd I don't believe it. At the edge there is debate but there is also huge amounts of consensus.
You would know this if you actually looked into it. I highly doubt you have even investigated.
Just like you are not going to create your own field of medicine you are not going to get any history correct without getting your own degrees or turning to scholarship.
Joseph Atwell the wealthy author also walked his own line and wrote a book about how Jesus was a creation of the Roman Empire. It's full on crank.

And I don't have much trouble with mythers..... they are easy meat, joelr.

Don't know what that means?

You haven't put forth one single shred of evidence to back up anything. Literally, nothing. The attempt at debunking some of the examples that showed Mark was sourcing Paul was actual nonsensical at points. You didn't challenge one single example. Never mind the fact that Mark is using ring structure and all types of highly intricate literary devices used in myth and his character scores almost 100% on the RR mythotype scale. You cannot debunk that as it's been proven.

So when you say "easy meat" I think something is going on in your mind that isn't actually happening in reality? If you find that saying "I don't agree" is a good enough response then good for you. I am more interested in finding out what's true.

 

[joelr]

The gospels talk about specific villages and towns with accurate details about their locations, and with accurate details about the lakes, seas, mountains, type of trees etc. many of these are small towns that most people were not aware of.

The gospels provide accurate information about historical persons including “local people” that would have been unknown by the majority of foragers

The gospels have all the known and verifiable details about Jesus correct

The ratio of common names vs uncommon names is accurate

The architecture is accurate (for example they type of houses common in Capernaum)

The costumes are accurete including the specific costumes in specific towns .

Do you have anything similar or analogous in the Koran?

The Iliad accurately describes aspects of the geography of the region surrounding the ancient city of Troy during the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. Many of the places mentioned in the Hindu myth about Ramayana associated with or visited by Rama are known to exist like Ayodhya.
The author of Mark clearly knew the area. No one is suggesting this was written by someone in another country? We know the authors were highly educated Greek writers who were writing about places they were familiar with.

No historian knows or can "verify" if details about Jesus are correct. There were 40 known gospels until the 3rd century when Rome settled on a specific creed then later a canon.
The first canon was the Marcionite canon and the current canon is considered a response canon to the Marcionite canon. We will never know what that version said. The 2nd century was full of opposing sects including Gnostic sects.
We only have speculation as to why those 4 gospels were chosen but experts believe those were each the main gospel of 4 different churches who were in favor with Constantine at the time they were creating a creed and official canon. So it was political.
You do realize that it's so much not likely to be the correct details (none are likely correct but all literary creations) that the standard explanation by the church is that God made the correct gospels come together by magic God power?

So saying there are known and verifiable details is simply incorrect. The details we do have contain wisdom already being taught by Jewish teachers like Rabbi Hillel before the time of Jesus which can be seen on the Wiki page of Hilell the Elder.
So it wasn't new but the character does score very high on the mythotype scale, 2 facts which suggest this was a literary creation. This scale includes - born of a virgin, details about childhood not clear, enacted laws, becomes a king, son of a God, death on a hill, not buried.... Pretty sure the Koran is also historically accurate in it's description of the time/place.
This obviously doesn't make a myth true. They all do this.
If you bother to read The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels there are many letters from Bishop Ignatious about the competing Gnostic sects and it shows how diverse and wildly different the different churches were in the 2nd century.

 

[lukethethird]

The author of Mark clearly knew the area. No one is suggesting this was written by someone in another country? We know the authors were highly educated Greek writers who were writing about places they were familiar with.

Actually the author of Mark was not familiar with the area which is why scholars have suggested that the author was from elsewhere. The author of Matthew corrected the geographical mistakes when he copied gMark.

 

[oldbadger]

Historians don't read fantasy fiction and garner history from them by removing the supernatural bits. We can't do this with fantasy fiction but if you insist that we can do this with the gospels because you insist they are different, then you have to admit that you are committed to fideism.

Luke......... that's all you can do..... yes? You have a fixation that the gospels are 'fantasy fiction' (twice in a para) and you tell me 'what historians do' when I have delivered to you a long list of many historians who do accept that Jesus was a real person. And you do accept peer-reviewed historical opinion, don't you?
Don't you realise that by acknowledging the opinions of a very large % of all historians that have studied HJ you are trashing your own belief that the gospels are all fantasy fiction'? It only needed one fact to trash your theory.
Now....... Let's start over.... why not...... Do you agree with historians that Jesus was a real person? A simple Yes or No would be fine.

 

[oldbadger]

Ha! That's like a flat-earther saying "all you do is wave peer-reviewed science around".

Then you strawman the argument. It isn't "a few scholars". If there were other opinions in historicity I would have said so. Exactly like I said the current big debate is historicity vs mythicism. Historicity does not include taking the gospels as history even without the supernatural. So you have no scholarship to wave around. So your theory is crank.

I produced that list of historians that agree that Jesus was a real person.
The main body of historians agree on that.

And here comes the irony. You call it ignorant yet I'm going only by actual scholarship and providing endless streams of examples and papers. Not one single thing is my idea. These are facts pointed out by people who understand how to read myths and writings from the period.
You have nothing except to try to tear down my argument with literally nothing except your opinion.

It's not your argument, joelr. I see you as an armchair atheist who read some books and has stretched their findings to fit your fantasy theory.

You rely on some kind of Argumentum ad Verecundia by clinging to a very few myther historians and disregarding those that don't fit your theory.

Even worse is you can't even get my argument correct. I didn't say everything in the gospels are myth. There are real locations and possibly some real people. But it's a fact that the stories are written as myth.

Hooray! At last!
A beginning!

Now........ which names could have been real?
Which ones? Can you build a list?

Whoops, you are responding to the wrong argument here? I already said the MAIN DEBATE IS HISTORICITY VS MYTHICISM. That means many historians DO NOT AGREE WITH MYTHICISM???? Are you dizzy?
But that doesn't mean the gospels are historical.

You need to shout that out. But it cannot help you.
The Gospel of Mark, stripped of it's evangelical fiddlings, becomes (imo) a kind of deposition, joelr.
And by your own rules you cannot trash it with any judgement of yours..... You need to quote 'peer reviewed' scholars that have come to that decision, and then I can quote 'peer reviewed' scholars that think there is historical value in them. That's your rules I'm playing by, and since more scholars agree with my feelings than yours......
Using your own rules you have lost.

You actually do need a degree to know how to do history

That's why don't listen to you, joelr.........
You need to actually quote the actual words of any scholars who demand that the whole gospel is fantasy fiction. Their words, not yours.
By your standards your argument is of no value.
All you can do is copy paste the EXACT words of historians.

I'm familiar with Doherty and JDC.
Guess what. None of these people think the gospel stories are reliable history.
Historicity means a man named Jesus lived and taught and we know very little about his actual life.

JDC........ you claim to be familiar with his work. So what was Jesus in his viewpoint?

None of these scholars did a historicity study on Jesus. They were working on the assumption that he was a real person.
The historian who actually looked into those assumptions has demonstrated they do not hold and were not looked into in the past because it would just **** off too many people to announce Jesus was entirely a myth.
Earl Doherty is now a mythicist. This article is outdated.

Love it! Your cries are so much fun.
My chosen historian is better than your chosen historians! Waaaaa!
My rules count, only mine....... Waaaaa!

We used to get this trash on RF years ago. One member would wave their chosen scholar's name about to prove everything, then another member would wave theirs. Armchair debaters who read a book or two and trashed all the others.

Pathetic. I've been studying the gospels for a long time, and my only qualification for doing so is that I can be objective and am a fairly good investigator. I feel quite confident to propose why the Baptist did what he did, how Jesus joined his ranks and later tried to carry it forward, and where it all ended.

I don't think that you have researched anything..... you just keep wailing on about your chosen scholar's ideas and somehow spinning ALL of the gospel in to fantasy.

I think you might be what I call an aggressive atheist myther, not content with just your opinions but devoted to crushing other people's faiths under feet in front of them. I am a Deist so you'll have trouble with me on that, joelr.

 

[lukethethird]

Luke......... that's all you can do..... yes? You have a fixation that the gospels are 'fantasy fiction' (twice in a para) and you tell me 'what historians do' when I have delivered to you a long list of many historians who do accept that Jesus was a real person. And you do accept peer-reviewed historical opinion, don't you?
Don't you realise that by acknowledging the opinions of a very large % of all historians that have studied HJ you are trashing your own belief that the gospels are all fantasy fiction'? It only needed one fact to trash your theory.
Now....... Let's start over.... why not...... Do you agree with historians that Jesus was a real person? A simple Yes or No would be fine.

The fact that the gospels are fantasy fiction says nothing about whether or not the unknown author of Mark had a particular itinerate preacher in mind when he wrote his gospel story. If the author had none, or one or two or more in mind there is no way of knowing. Judging by the fact that believing scholars can't agree on who this Jesus was appears that it's not possible to know.

All these historians you speak of have theology degrees from theological institutes and they know which side their bread is buttered on. The only non-theologian, bonified historian I know of that has written a peer reviewed paper on the historicity of Jesus is Dr. Richard Carrier and he states that the probability of an historical Jesus is 1 in 3.

 

[oldbadger]

The fact that the gospels are fantasy fiction......

Whoa! You haven't shown that they are. That's just your pet opinion.

......]says nothing about whether or not the unknown author of Mark had a particular itinerate preacher in mind when he wrote his gospel story. If the author had none, or one or two or more in mind there is no way of knowing. Judging by the fact that believing scholars can't agree on who this Jesus was appears that it's not possible to know.

That's your opinion!
The FACT that Priesthood corruption and greed existed, and hypocrisy and the FACT that the Temple coin was a disgusting thing to even touch, coupled with what the Baptist was saying and doing..... shows a clear picture as shown in G-Mark.

Jesus said it all when he exclaimed @I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.

It builds from there.

All these historians you speak of have theology degrees from theological institutes and they know which side their bread is buttered on. The only non-theologian, bonified historian I know of that has written a peer reviewed paper on the historicity of Jesus is Dr. Richard Carrier and he states that the probability of an historical Jesus is 1 in 3.

Ah ha ha ha!
My scholar is better than your scholars! Waaaaa!
All them other scholars are corrupted but not mine! Waaaa!

As it happens I don't rely on any of them, but the fact that you scream out for 'peer-reviewed' opinion from everybody and then trash in to the dustbin all the 'peer-reviewed' scholars whose opinions don't fit yours is just so funny.

 

[oldbadger]

In that very link, it is made clear that the Josephus reference is likely a forgery .

Not enough.......
More investigation on the Josephus mention of Jesus is needed.
It can be shown that Josephus did write about Jesus...... that is fairly easy for any investigator to show.

Here is the main mention of Jesus for your scrutiny:-
Antiquities....
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

OK? Now since Josephus was no Christian, nor with any particular feelings for Christianity I think it can be safe to remove any mentions (in the above of anything miraculous or wonderful or Godly, and certainly anything to do with Gentiles, so we end up with (at best) is:-
Antiquities:-
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man,............ And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;.............And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

......... you're left with the above, if even that. OK?

Now, to prove that Josephus wrote about Jesus I only need the name 'Jesus' and one other thing...... the place where this was written, the empty space if you like.

Why? Well in this whole section Josephus is writing about troubles and difficulties and difficult people. In the paragraph before this entry J tells us about how Pilate sent soldiers in disguise with sicario daggers to kill certain protesters, and in the para after the Jesus para he tells of of another difficult situation/person.

The Space! Christians would NEVER have inserted this very poor mention of their God in with difficult persons, which Josephus clearly thought that Jesus was. Oh.... and they would have written a larger report than the one that the Baptist got.

So Josephus did write about Jesus, and some Christian later managed to erase/insert a piece in to the small space left, just where that space had originally been.

OK?