Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[epronovost]

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.

Your argument doesn't follow. Knowing of the existence of a city and two town as well as two major local leader isn't specific knowledge, especially when one takes into account historical mistakes on the census and other details like making Jesus hail from a town that would not exist for two centuries. it doesn't show intimate knowledge of the area.

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?

A lack of historical errors. The name of the author and the nature of their sources. A precise chronology of the events of Jesus life instead of one interpolated.

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

Will you read the material that I send to you even though they will be the first results of a google search?[/QUOTE]

 

[Valjean]

Yes that is my point, someone who lived in the correct place/time and knows the correct people would know who Jesus was and what he did.

We know that the authors lived in the correct place/time and knew the correct people because they had all these historical and geographical details correct….. any disagreement?

No. We don't know who the authors were, and, as has also been pointed out, historical and geographical details are common knowledge. If not known to the original authors they can always be filled in by later copyists or editors.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

There's so much scholarship on this out there now, that it hardly seems worth it for ignorant me to try to add anything. But I would like to say a couple of things that I think are important.

1. The authors intended to report what actually happened: No, I don't believe they did. I believe that they were already convinced converts to Paul's new sect (they wrote well after him, and they were none of them eye-witnesses to Jesus's activities), and they were attempting to sell it. They were, in a word, proselytizing just as much as any street preacher today.
2. The authors had access to reliable sources: No, I don't believe they did. They had access to a lot of what were called "sayings," stories that were being passed around from person to person quite literally for decades (up to 7 decades in the case of John). And if anybody doesn't know how such things get embellished and warped as they are passed from person-to-person, from group-to-group, from community-to-community, from generation-to-generation, then you don't very much about human culture at all.
3. So if an author tries to be accurate and has reliable sources it follows (inductively) that his work is reliable. But since, as I've shown, I am convinced, as are most scholars, that they did not have either such intentions or access to reliable sources, whatever they may have concluded inductively isn't really worth a great deal.

And just one more little point -- there were lots of other "gospels" around from which the early compilers of the Bible could have chosen, but they didn't. And they conflict with the Canonical Gospels just as much and more as the Synoptic Gospels clash with John. And John was most certainly not doing history -- he was doing theology, plain and simple.

 

[Valjean]

But that makes you someone with access to good sources

A knowledge of history never prevented writers and storytellers from making things up. Next time you're in the library note how large the fiction section is. Those authors knew history and geography, too.

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

Many of the Bible stories are just re-iterations of ancient legends.
The crucifixion wasn't shameful, it was prophetic.
Live sacrifices were sacred rites amongst the Jews, as was the scape-goat ritual. The crucifixion fit Jesus neatly into both of these roles.

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

Don't legends always evolve over time? Don't advocates always enhance their cases?

 

[shunyadragon]

sources that provided reliable infromation , sources that are mostly true

Does not answer the qquestion, because there is no evidence of sources before 50AD

 

[Tiberius]

So you think Star Trek was reporting historical events?

On the front cover of the book "Spock must die" it says "Created for the famous television series".

Read the authors note.

Unlike the preceding three STAR TREK books, this one is not
a set of adaptations of scripts which have already been
shown on television, but an original novel built around the
characters and background of the TV series conceived by
Gene Roddenberry. I am grateful to the many fans of the
show who asked me to tackle such a project, and to Bantam
Books and Paramount Television for agreeing to it.
And who knows — it might make a television episode, or
several, some day. Although the American network
(bemused, as usual, by a rating service of highly dubious
statistical validity) has cancelled the series, it began to run
in Great Britain in mid-June 1969, and the first set of
adaptations was published concurrently in London by Corgi
Books. If the show is given a new lease on life through the
popularity of British reruns, it would not be the first such
instance in television history.
I, for one, refuse to believe that an enterprise so well
conceived, so scrupulously produced, and so widely loved
can stay boneyarded for long.
And I have 1,898 letters from people who don’t believe it
either.

So you are wrong mate.

So? You think religion doesn't have it's fair share of fan fiction as well? What do you think the Book of Mormon is? Christian fan fic. Of course there's Star Trek fiction out there. That doesn't mean ALL of Trek is fake.

Try again.

 

[Tiberius]

It makes sense that retellings of stories would differ.

I am sure that with people recalling 911, everybody would say that planes flew into the twin towers. Some would say that there were three towers flown into while only two were focused on. Some would remember that the Pentagon was also damaged. There would be different recollections of how many people died. Some would say that muslim terrorists did it while others would say that it was a false flag attack.

So it doesn't surprise me at all that the Bible writers differ on details while recalling an actual event. That is why, like people knowing that planes flew into the twin towers, the writers of the gospels all recall the crucifixion of Jesus, which is most likely true, but differ on lots of other things.

Are you comparing the writers of the Gospels with the nutters who think that 9/11 was a fake attack?

REALLY?????

 

[Tiberius]

Honestly I am disappointed; from your previous comment I thought you where the kind of person that would be interested in having in a serious conversation .

I'm just going with the same assumption you made - that the authors of the text (be it the Gospels or Star Trek) intended to report on actual events.

If you want me to justify my assumption, then you must also justify yours.

 

[Tiberius]

goes against this purpose is likely to be an actual historical fact,

A better example:

Imagine that you write a book explaining and showing why your fried“Joe” would be the best president in USA…. The purpose of the book is to get as many votes as possible.

YOU have 2 options

1 Simply tell the truth and see what happens

2 Lie and idealize Joe, and make him look good.

If your book has embarrassing details , like mistakes that JOE made in the past, his bad relationship with his wife, his embarrassing past as a member of the KKK etc. then it would be likely that you picked option 1….because all those embarasing details go against his purpose, voters might dislike the fact that he was a member of the KKK ...................... Any disagreement?

And what if I was making up a story - or simply taking a pre-existing story - and wanted to convince people that it was true? Then I'd include a few details to make the main character look a biut silly sometimes, and then point to those bits and say, "See? If the story was made up, why would I include this bit that makes the character seem silly?"

And you'd say, "Hmmmm, that's a good point, I guess it MUST be true!"

The fact a story contains embarrassing details does not make it more likely to be true.

 

[blü 2]

My point is the authors reported what they thought was true….they didn’t intentionally lied……….any mistakes in the gospels where honest mistakes and not deliberate lies……..agree?

I think they were telling a story that was important to them, and that they were each confident that their view was the correct way for the story to go, so they felt free to amend Mark (in particular) where Mark disagreed with the personal vision of each writer. They were not writing as historians, rather to have the story accord with their particular view.

Thus for example the author of Matthew felt free to invent an imaginary "taxation census". Why? Because he felt it would be proper for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem. Why? Because Micah 5:2 says, "But from you, O Bethlehem [...] shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel". So he felt justified in devising a tale by which Jesus is born there "to fulfill prophecy" ─ though of course Jesus was never a ruler of Israel and the idea is purely the author's aspirational view.

In exactly the same way the author of Matthew invented an imaginary "Massacre of the Innocents". Why? So as to get Jesus transported into Egypt. Why? Because Hosea 11.1 says "When Israel was a child, I loved him, / and out of Egypt I called my son."

There are many many examples of this in the NT.

(I have this scene in my mind where Mrs Mark comes home with the shopping, sees Mark at the table with his reed and papyrus, and says, "How's the Jesus bio going, dear?" Mark replies, "I haven't written a word. No one has a clue about what he actually did." Mrs Mark gives a big smile and says, "He has to do all the things a messiah is supposed to do in the Tanakh. Just whip up a list of anything that looks like a messianic prophecy, put the episodes in some kind of order, and move Jesus through each of them in turn. Fill in the spaces from your list of sayings." And he gives her a kiss, seizes his pen and his Tanakh, and sets to work.)

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

I agree, you can find truths in the bible... but I've found truths in virtually every book I've ever read.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Would you say this was true of other legendary characters as well -- Zeus, Paul Bunyan, Osiris, Prester John, Rama, St Patrick?

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.

They are not known to be accurate. They differ. Even Biblical scholars -- whom you refuse to hear -- agree on this.
The Four Gospels - Sources and History
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

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

He did provide sources, You chose not to google them. I doubt if you read my pre-googled links, either.

A subject can't be treated in depth in a chat room. If you really want answers to your questions you're going to have to read, however distasteful that may be to you.

You claim to be interested in truth, but you actively avoid it, particularly when it promises to contradict your particular theology. You're interested only in arguing, and not very skilled at it.

 

[firedragon]

So? You think religion doesn't have it's fair share of fan fiction as well? What do you think the Book of Mormon is? Christian fan fic. Of course there's Star Trek fiction out there. That doesn't mean ALL of Trek is fake.

Try again.

Thats irrelevant. Your post was about Star Trek.

 

[nPeace]

Not really no. Tacitus does confirm the crucifiction, but not anything else in the Gospel and certainly not the resurrection nor the content of Jesus' preachings. Paul never met Jesus and can't confirm anything about his life or his death since he was never there in the first place. Paul can be considered mildly useful to know more about the early Christians and fellow Jewish reformers and more importantly, Paul doesn't directly quote nor is part of any of the Gospels. Paul was not interrested in demonstrating the historical accuracy of the events in the Gospels. Paul is thus not a historical source for Jesus' life.

You didn't live 200 years ago, and thus can only claim that Paul never met Jesus.
In other words, because he and those who know, are dead, and cannot take the stand and prove your claim false, you can say anything that is untrue.
The records however speak as a testimony.

Paul's writings... for the most part, are accepted as undeniably his.
When we put them alongside Peter's - another confirmed writer - writings, we have a witness, who lived at the same time. Then we have Mark and Luke - contemporaries... more witnesses.

So it is easy to just say something is not true, just because it is history, but that's not facts.
They aren't true because one say's them.

The political structure of Jerusalem as some areas in the region are common knowledge. Spiderman is in Queens, New-York City and accurately describe the existence of mayors, governors, US Presidents and a variety of police officials and the structure of some media corporations and even some historical events and social upheavals. Spiderman comic books aren't historical documents.

Spiderman being in New-York City, doesn't refute the Assyrians being in Jerusalem.
Stories can be factual, despite fictional stories.
Clear Strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't live 200 years ago, and thus can only claim that Paul never met Jesus.
In other words, because he and those who know, are dead, and cannot take the stand and prove your claim false, you can say anything that is untrue.
The records however speak as a testimony.

Paul's writings... for the most part, are accepted as undeniably his.
When we put them alongside Peter's - another confirmed writer - writings, we have a witness, who lived at the same time. Then we have Mark and Luke - contemporaries... more witnesses.

So it is easy to just say something is not true, just because it is history, but that's not facts.
They aren't true because one say's them.


Spiderman being in New-York City, doesn't refute the Assyrians being in Jerusalem.
Stories can be factual, despite fictional stories.
Clear Strawman.

Paul himself tells you that he never met Jesus. This is not a disputed claim.

Yes, many of the writings attributed to Paul appear to be his. Though the same cannot be said about the writings of Peter.

Mark and Luke were not written by Mark and Luke, that is merely church tradition and neither were likely contemporaries,. In fact the author of Luke was definitely not one. Your "facts" appear to be nonexistent or close to it.

 

[nPeace]

Harcourt Fenton Mudd programmed robots to serve him. Spock said "logic is a little bird tweeting in a tree" and in another show, asked them to compute the last digit of pi (there is no last digit). Mudd said "everything I say is a lie" (robot responded..."but if everything you say is a lie, and you are lying when you say that, then everything you say is the truth."

What the poor robot didn't understand is that sometimes we can lie and sometimes we can tell the truth.

Some things in the bible are completely accurate. For example, the bible speaks of cities that exist no longer. Yet, when we use the bible to trace where they might be, we often find them. So, the bible has been shown to be historically accurate about the location of ancient cities.

The apostles all died out by the time the bible was written, some 100 years or more after the death of Jesus. So they could not have all gotten together to give their versions of events for the bible 100 years or so after everyone was dead.

Depends on what you mean by "the Bible".
If you mean, our modern Bible, it's actually more than 100 years.
If you mean from Genesis to Revelation, then No.
If John wrote Revelation - which many believe he did, then an apostle was still alive, when the Bible was complete.

When Matthew wrote his Gospel, part of the Bible was in existence before Peter, John, and other apostles died.

When Mark completed his Gospel, the same was true.... etc.

But we could argue that the bible was written to be perfect by divine intervention (God telling the author or guiding the hand of the author).

Yet , many parts of the bible have errors, so, if it was divinely inspired, it must be perfect, yet it has errors, so it must not have been entirely divinely inspired.

Example of a bible error:
Gen 1:25: Man created before animals..
Gen 2:18: Man created after animals

Evidently this is an error to you, because of how you read it, and I would say, don't understand what you read.
Animals were created before man was created, and after man was created Also during part of his lifetime.
Eve was the last creature created.
That's what's written.

Also, kings and clergy changed certain passages of the bible. So we know that mankind, with an agenda, which redacted the words of God, must be wrong. So the bible is wrong. Since the only thing that we know about God is contained in the bible(s), we can't trust our belief in God.

Which parts exactly were changed please.

However, there is a way to get the truth. We could get the truth directly from God, himself.

Writhing on the floor, speaking in tongues, lkjlsdfjsljflsdkj, there you have it, the truth, directly from God.

Or, you can go to a psychic and see what the real truth is.

But, you would have to go to a psychic who is reliable.

Before the war in Iraq, God gave divine insight to the world's best psychics. They predicted all of the things that were predicted in Revelation. Revelation said not to attack Iraq. Apparently God was right and President W. Bush was wrong....Iraq was completely innocent of terrorism. Revelation also said that W. Bush was the beast and Bush senior (his father) was the dragon, and that both the beast and dragon are Satanic demons from the bottomless pit of hell.

So, if you believe that Satanic beings were supported by the Religious Right, and elected to the presidency, then you can believe in God. Otherwise, you cannot.

Why would one believe in feelings which one does not know if some evil entity is pulling strings to manipulate already misled thinking into believing what one is inclined to believe, over something you can examine closely, to confirm its reliability?

 

[Tiberius]

Thats irrelevant. Your post was about Star Trek.

So?

The fact that some people have created non-Canon Star Trek does not change the fact that there is Canon Star Trek that describes actual events.

Stop trying to claim special pleading.

 

[nPeace]

Great topic.

1. The authors are unknown, and though you could say they were trying to write history looking at the way they are written, they are also theological books.

I certainly would agree that to you, the authors are unknown, but to say they are unknown to others, would not be an accurate statement.
There are Biblical scholars who say the authors are known,
They say this based on writings of individuals living during, and shortly after the time, of writing.
There is no reason to dismiss these testimonies.

In fact, we can liken it to people throughout all history, who wrote things... "I 'so and so" did xyz".
We do not say the writers are unknown, simply because we never saw them jot down a 'letter'.

The same could happen to us, three centuries from now.
Erasing history is as easy as just saying, "No. Never happened."

Nevertheless, there is no way to determine who they were, or if they were actually writing history, and what their sources were.

Not according to scholars who do not dismiss the early church fathers, and their writings

Seems to me, persons pick and choose what they want to accept.
For example, no one denies the apostolic age, and the letters written to the congregations, but easily, many claim that the apostles wrote nothing of their leader and his activities with them.
Does that not baffle you? It baffles me.

2. a. Criterion of Embarrassment in Textual Criticism to me is acceptable. But this criterion in affirming historicity is invalid in my opinion. A reason is, you take a book, you know it is written like 40 years after an event, you dont know who wrote it, but since it has an embarrassing event that took place it is true? This could also be the flip side. Lets say something truly embarrassing is written in one of the books, and you take it as valid simply because it is "embarrassing", but did you think if the author had a "more embarrassing" occurrence that he was covering up with a "less embarrassing" story?
b. There are many movies today with lets say "Barrack Obama" speaking on the TV. Obama is a historical figure, that does not mean this movie is historical. Of course there could be a scenario where the New Testament book you refer to was written centuries later but got an ancient event exactly right and the correct discovery was only made in the 21st century (as an example), that's a whole other argument to take into consideration.

I think the first assumption can be used to create other assumptions to form such an argument.
However, these are merely argument - None of them having any structure, or foundation imo.

The first assumption is false, since the writers are not unknown... at least, outside one's mind.
So, using a number of pieces of evidence would strengthen the evidence for the reliability and authenticity of the Gospels.

1. They were known.
2. They gave objective opinions.
3. They were primary sources.
4. They are backed by secondary sources.

These are considered valid criterion, in investigation.
I consider the comic-book argument a strawman... but maybe that's just me.

 

[nPeace]

I don't think there's any evidence of that. I think they intended to pass on a story about the person they'd never met but venerated. None of them ever met Jesus, and each had his own version of who Jesus was.

And miracles were no more real 2000 years ago than they are now
There's no evidence of that either. Paul never met Jesus. The author of Mark wrote the first purported bio of Jesus some 45 years after the traditional date of Jesus' death, and making up his plot from parts of the Tanakh that seemed to him useful as "messianic prophecies". and borrowing his trial scene from Josephus' account of the trial of another Jesus, and so on.
It does in Mark. As the authors of Matthew and Luke retell it, the Jesus character at the crucifixion moves from Mark's broken and defeated figure till we get to John's Jesus acting more like MC.

However, I agree it's a recognized rule in reading history that embarrassing stories are more likely to be true. The most curious one, I think, is how Jesus in all four gospels never has a kind word for his mother or his family, the sole exception being at John's crucifixion scene. See Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26. If I were making a case for an historical Jesus, I'd start with this.

What's your proof that Paul never met Jesus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's your proof that Paul never met Jesus?

Paul's writings.