Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[Subduction Zone]

As my OP explains.

1 the fact that the documents are written as Greco-Roman biographies

2 the fact that the gospels have embarrassing details

They both show that the authors were honestly trying to represent what actually happened. ……….

Embarrassing to you does not necessarily mean "embarrassing" to all. In fact I do not see embarrassing details in the stories. And no, the "documents" are written as myth more than as biographies. As usual all of your claims are only claims and not supported by any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Greco roman biography is just the name of the literary style of the documents.

Then support this claim with evidence for valid sources.

 

[paarsurrey]

Greco roman biography is just the name of the literary style of the documents.

Nevertheless, it was not prepared where Jesus lived his life, please. Right friend, please?
Instead, why doesn't study from the Book Jesus used to read from and act upon accordingly, please? Right friend, please?

Rregards

 

[leroy]

Incorrect. Knowing that New-York exists and that Chester A Arthur was a POTUS of the US that came from there doesn't make me a contemporary of Chester A Arthur nor an American nor a New-Yorker. I am not a historical source for the life of Chester A Arthur.

But that makes you someone with access to good sources

A Roman centurion who was in garnison 5 years before Jesus death could know all the coroborated informations in the Gospels and never have met Jesus or heard of him.

Granted, I never said that the authors of the sources ever saw Jesus, all I am saying is that they were in a position to know who Jesus was and what he did.

They did. They made Jesus shameful death into an act of sacrifice to save the soul of humanity and resurrect from the dead. If you can't deny something, give it a positive spin.

If the authors where just inventing myths, why inventing a shameful death that would make their goal of preaching the gospel harder to achieve?..........thats the point

They were not. Only fragments exist today. please, quote me a medieval theologian who recites or uses passages from the Gospel of Mary.

Why is that relevant?.......... do you have evidence that the gospels where censured by the church?

 

[leroy]

Then support this claim with evidence for valid sources.

What claim? Please explain specifically what claim am I supposed to support?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What claim? Please explain specifically what claim am I supposed to support?

Have you not read the OP?

Oh, wait, you wrote it. Hell, you even attached your user name to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What claim? Please explain specifically what claim am I supposed to support?

Your claims in the OP.

 

[epronovost]

But that makes you someone with access to good sources

Not good source of Jesus's life though. Only good source as to very basic information about the region and era. A person with access to such sources isn't itself an historical source.

Granted, I never said that the authors of the sources ever saw Jesus, all I am saying is that they were in a position to know who Jesus was and what he did.

We don't know that they were in a position to know anything about Jesus. For all we know they invented everything he said and did based on a vague description from some his followers which themselves might have never known him directly.

If the authors where just inventing myths, why inventing a shameful death that would make their goal of preaching the gospel harder to achieve?..........thats the point

The goal of the Gospel is to tell a religious myth based on events that actually happened. Just like the Illyad is a religious myth based on a real historical event. The entire resurrection, sacrifice and impending return narrative werre designed to ease the fact that Jesus was dead and his messianic ambitions were completely thwarted by that fact. It's a clear attempt at salvage a message of hope and victory after a debacle.

Why is that relevant?.......... do you have evidence that the gospels where censured by the church?

Yes, just google the index or the numerous canon debates and the sectarian wars and conflict of the early christians or the very concept of "heresy".

 

[leroy]

Your claims in the OP.

be specific, with which particular claim should I start?

 

[Subduction Zone]

be specific, with which particular claim should I start?

Perhaps by learning what is and what is not evidence?

 

[leroy]

Not good source of Jesus's life though. Only good source as to very basic information about the region and era. A person with access to such sources isn't itself an historical source.

It is not basic information, it is detailed and specific information, … ,my point is that someone who had access to that information is likely to have accurate information on who Jesus was and What he did.

We don't know that they were in a position to know anything about Jesus. For all we know they invented everything he said and did based on a vague description from some his followers which themselves might have never known him directly.

Again, the testable details about Jesus , and the context are known to be accurate. This shows that the authors of the gospels knew their stuff. Besides at least some of the gospels are indecent form each other and they agree.
What evidence would convince you that they where in a position to know?

Yes, just google the index or the numerous canon debates and the sectarian wars and conflict of the early christians or the very concept of "heresy".

I wont google anything………….. You asserted that the gospels where censored,. So please provide the source.

 

[lukethethird]

The reason I would argue that the Gospels are reliable from a historical point of view is because I belive that points 1,2 and 3 are ture:

1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

3 So if an author tries to be accurate and has reliable sources it follows (inductively) that his work is reliable.

if you disagree with ether 1,2 or 3 please let me know why you disagree.




1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

Given the literary genera of the text (Greco roman biography) and the fact that the gosspels are fool of embarrassing details* it seems probable that point 1 is true

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

Given that most of the political, historical, demographic and geographical details** in the gospels are accurate … it seems probable that the authors had access to good sources, otherwise they would have not known those details.

---

*Embarrassing details: Jesus had a humiliating death, Peter denied Jesus, The empty tomb was discovered by woman, he was buried in the tomb of a Jewish Sanhedrin, Jesus had limited knowledge, etc. all these details represented obstacles for the early Christians, (things would have been easier without those embarrassing details)

** There really was a Pilate, there really was a Caiphas, the ratio of common names vs uncommon names are consistent, there really was a Jewish Sanhedrin that had some power and influence over the romans, they villages, towns cities etc. really excisted…………onlyh someone who was there or who had acces to reliable source could have known all these.

It appears that you are arguing from a believers point of view rather than from an historical one.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I saw a pattern………… for some reason most skeptics from this forum make a big deal because we don’t know who the authors where.

My answer is : who cares? You don’t. need to know the name of the authors in order to grants point 1, 2 and 3 form the OP.

Honestly what would change if we discovered that the name of the author was a guy named “Joe” instead of Mark?

1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

On what are you basing this assumption, other than your desire to believe that it is true? Since you don't know who wrote it you have absolutely no idea what they intended.

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

Says who? If I make 10 claims and 6 of them are true does that mean the other 4 are automatically true as well? No it does not.

3 So if an author tries to be accurate and has reliable sources it follows (inductively) that his work is reliable.

You have not established that 1 and 2 are correct, so 3 can be readily dismissed.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not claiming that they where witnesses, all I am saying is that they had access to good sources, we know this because they had many historical and geographical details correct,

Here is the question for an anecdotal claim: What are good sources?

 

[Clara Tea]

The gospels don't even agree what Jesus' final words were.

Ouch. Which is the final word of most dying people. Expecting great wisdom at a time like that?

 

[Clara Tea]

1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

On what are you basing this assumption, other than your desire to believe that it is true? Since you don't know who wrote it you have absolutely no idea what they intended.

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

Says who? If I make 10 claims and 6 of them are true does that mean the other 4 are automatically true as well? No it does not.

3 So if an author tries to be accurate and has reliable sources it follows (inductively) that his work is reliable.

You have not established that 1 and 2 are correct, so 3 can be readily dismissed.

I think of the bible as a statistic. Some is false, but at least there is a chance that some is true. That's sort of the way quantum mechanics works.

 

[blü 2]

I agree with you on all of the writers except Luke. To me it does seem like he was trying to create a historical account, an actual biography. But that is just based off the detail of his gospel and the fact that he admits that he was gathering accounts and compiling them. To me it seems like he was collecting info to gather the truth of the situation.

Yet despite his intro, which invites the reader to think he was an historian starting from scratch, his entire frame is Mark, with some Q, and a bit of Matthew, and only then some notes. (And even before we get to his genealogy ─ which I think he'd likely have obtained from someone else ─ we have to overcome the hurdle that in Luke, Joseph wasn't Jesus' father anyway.)

 

[Jainarayan]

The reason I would argue that the Gospels are reliable from a historical point of view is because I belive that points 1,2 and 3 are ture:

1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

3 So if an author tries to be accurate and has reliable sources it follows (inductively) that his work is reliable.

if you disagree with ether 1,2 or 3 please let me know why you disagree.




1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

Given the literary genera of the text (Greco roman biography) and the fact that the gosspels are fool of embarrassing details* it seems probable that point 1 is true

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

Given that most of the political, historical, demographic and geographical details** in the gospels are accurate … it seems probable that the authors had access to good sources, otherwise they would have not known those details.

---

*Embarrassing details: Jesus had a humiliating death, Peter denied Jesus, The empty tomb was discovered by woman, he was buried in the tomb of a Jewish Sanhedrin, Jesus had limited knowledge, etc. all these details represented obstacles for the early Christians, (things would have been easier without those embarrassing details)

** There really was a Pilate, there really was a Caiphas, the ratio of common names vs uncommon names are consistent, there really was a Jewish Sanhedrin that had some power and influence over the romans, they villages, towns cities etc. really excisted…………onlyh someone who was there or who had acces to reliable source could have known all these.

Not even touching on my disbelief in all that, and how as a proof that fails epically and miserably, why is it so important for Christians to prove the veracity of the Bible, to prove God’s and/or Jesus’s existence, to prove Jesus’s historicity? Is their faith not strong enough to stand on its own? Whom are they trying to convince, themselves or others?

 

[Clara Tea]

Knowing that a president existed doesn't make one a good source. So, knowing that Jesus existed doesn't make one a good source about Jesus. Since the internet didn't exist in those days, and since there were not reporters (that we know of) snapping pictures of Jesus and recording his voice, it is difficult to have reliable info. Since the bible was written at least 100 years after the apostles had died, it is difficult to get accurate statements from them. It is possible that the info was transferred by word of mouth. But that is not very reliable. It is also possible that God told people what to write in the bible (by divine revelation). But, if so, the bible would be 100% correct, since God is presumed to be 100% correct. But then how did all of the errors in the bible get there?

Example of contradictions in the bible:
Gen 1:25: Man created before animals.
Gen 2:18: Man created after animals.

It could be that God wrote it 100% correctly, then some king or pope rewrote the bible wrong.

But that would mean that the bible is wrong.

If the bible is wrong, and the only reason for believing in God is what we read in the bible, then we don't have any basis for believing in God.

However, there is a way to be sure about God's divine revelation. That is to get the info right now directly from God, himself. Psychics claim to be able to do this.

On the other hand, Psychics in the bible (Revelation) said that the presidents who attacked Iraq are Satanic demons from the bottomless pit of hell. So, we are forced to conclude that if the bible is right, and if there is a God, current Christians who defy God (kill, while God commanded "thou shalt not kill" and don't turn the other cheek), must not be following God, but must be following Satan. Those who support the war in Iraq must be following Satan (because that is certainly not what God has ordered). You sort of know this is true because of the lies, cover-ups, and the torture camp at Guantanamo. All of this is not like God.

 

[leroy]

Here is the question for an anecdotal claim: What are good sources?

sources that provided reliable infromation , sources that are mostly true