Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[firedragon]

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.

You missed the point.

The book Star Trek says it is fiction. You want me to cut and paste again? Yet you claimed it is history!

 

[nPeace]

I think it's clear enough that the author of Mark wrote the first gospel, and the authors of Matthew and of Luke each took this as the basis of their own versions, omitting as each thought best, adding to it from Q and from their own respective notes, and generally altering the import to taste. So we end up with theme and personal variations, not discrete biographies. John does a similar thing but at a greater remove, and has to deal first with the failure of the promised Kingdom to arrive and second with the growth of Christianity from a Jewish sect to its own religion, whence the flashes of antisemitism.

Taking 30 CE as the traditional date of Jesus' death, Paul wrote more than 20 years later, Mark was written 45 or so years later, Matthew and Luke say 55 years later, and John say 65 years later. Neither Paul nor any of the gospel writers ever met an historical Jesus. All they had were various traditions, some of which may have been written, and various sayings attributed to Jesus.

Let's go with 33 CE. Why 30?

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia
The gospel itself does not specify an author, but he was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time. Early Christian tradition, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis (c. 125-150 AD), attributes the gospel to the apostle Matthew, but this is rejected by modern scholars.

The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the last quarter of the 1st century. The majority also believe that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works. The author of Matthew did not, however, simply copy Mark, but used it as a base, emphasising Jesus' place in the Jewish tradition and including other details not covered in Mark.

I guess no one will have anything against beliefs then.
Let's accept one belief... or other.
I and some, believe Matthew was the first Gospel - first written in Hebrew (one piece of evidence), no later than a decade after Jesus' death in 33 CE.

But they weren't writing as historians; they were each writing the story of Jesus they thought ought to be the correct one, the one they wanted to hear, fictional embellishments included.

As you say, there are a few fixed points common to the five stories. All agree that Jesus was a Jew who was a religious teacher with followers, put the Eucharist in place, was crucified by the Romans, was buried and was seen afterwards. In Mark, Jesus is expressly not of the line of David. Inthe other gospels, and in Paul, Jesus is indeed of the line of David (absurdly so in Matthew and Luke with their equally absurd genealogies).

So that's what you believe. I don't know why, but perhaps you have a reason.

 

[blü 2]

What's your proof that Paul never met Jesus?

Sorry for any confusion. I intended to convey that Paul never met a real Jesus. In my view visions no more count than dreams or hallucinations do.
.

 

[Tiberius]

You missed the point.

The book Star Trek says it is fiction. You want me to cut and paste again? Yet you claimed it is history!

No, the Book claimed the book is fiction. There's no part in what you quoted from the book that claims that the show itself is fiction.

 

[nPeace]

The gospels in nt are all mythology. Nothing historical in them.

What leads you to conclude that... you don't mind my asking?

 

[firedragon]

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."


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.


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.

So basically your evidence are church fathers. Yeah, good for a new thread.

 

[firedragon]

No, the Book claimed the book is fiction. There's no part in what you quoted from the book that claims that the show itself is fiction.

Lool. Generally blind faith like yours makes the obvious obscure.

Its good to know people who have so much faith that Star Trek is history that even if the book says it, you would not believe that part to further your faith in Spock and the rest.

Good going.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry for any confusion. I intended to convey that Paul never met a real Jesus. In my view visions no more count than dreams or hallucinations do.
.

"a real Jesus"??? What do you mean?
Still, how do you know? What proof do you have?

 

[nPeace]

@blü 2 can you fix your post at #167. It's messed up.

 

[nPeace]

So basically your evidence are church fathers. Yeah, good for a new thread.

Did you miss the others? Intentionally?

 

[Tiberius]

Lool. Generally blind faith like yours makes the obvious obscure.

Its good to know people who have so much faith that Star Trek is history that even if the book says it, you would not believe that part to further your faith in Spock and the rest.

Good going.

Wow, not only have you totally missed the point I was trying to make, but you are also incapable of actually responding to the points I raised. Instead, you just resort to childish insults. There's just no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you, is there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"a real Jesus"??? What do you mean?
Still, how do you know? What proof do you have?

According to the Bible Paul never met Jesus. He only knew him from "visions". Just like my visions of Elvis for the church of Rock and Roll. My visions appear to be just as valid as Paul's.

 

[McBell]

Lool. Generally blind faith like yours makes the obvious obscure.

Its good to know people who have so much faith that Star Trek is history that even if the book says it, you would not believe that part to further your faith in Spock and the rest.

Good going.

Now apply that knowledge to Christianity and Islam and ....

 

[blü 2]

@blü 2 can you fix your post at #167. It's messed up.

I've had two tries at it. Some kind of bug has found its way into your text that produces the muddle, and my work-arounds have failed, so I'll try again, having copied the text to Notepad and back.

Let's go with 33 CE. Why 30?

Well, the stories suggest a range of 30-33 CE. We could work with 31.5 CE if you prefer.

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia
The gospel itself does not specify an author, but he was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time. Early Christian tradition, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis (c. 125-150 AD), attributes the gospel to the apostle Matthew, but this is rejected by modern scholars.

That seems fair.

The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the last quarter of the 1st century.

I agree with that. Mid-80s fits well.

The majority also believe that Mark was the first gospel to be composed

Once Markan priority was pointed out to me, I could never go back. It's the only one that gives an analysis of the synoptics that works.

and that Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works. The author of Matthew did not, however, simply copy Mark, but used it as a base, emphasising Jesus' place in the Jewish tradition and including other details not covered in Mark.

Doesn't seem controversial.

I and some, believe Matthew was the first Gospel - first written in Hebrew (one piece of evidence), no later than a decade after Jesus' death in 33 CE.

What persuades you that Matthew was written by 43 CE?

What persuades you that it was originally written in (Aramaic?) Hebrew?

So that's what you believe. I don't know why, but perhaps you have a reason.

In Matthew, Jesus IS the son of God, and NOT the son of Joseph, so the genealogy couldn't be correct even were it historically credible. Or have I missed where the Tanakh says somewhere that God is of the line of David?

 

[firedragon]

Now apply that knowledge to Christianity and Islam and ....

Please do objectively rather than using Startrek as an analogy like an evangelist proselytising. I would like to see your scholarship on it.

 

[firedragon]

Wow, not only have you totally missed the point I was trying to make, but you are also incapable of actually responding to the points I raised. Instead, you just resort to childish insults. There's just no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you, is there?

I get your point

But now you have been shown how absurd your analogy was. Yet you insist that the TV series is not fiction.

Thus, "There's just no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you, is there"?

 

[McBell]

Please do objectively rather than using Startrek as an analogy like an evangelist proselytising. I would like to see your scholarship on it.

Your inability to apply the knowledge to religions strongly indicates that "blind faith like yours makes the obvious obscure."

But no worries mate, I did not figure you were able to in the first place.

 

[nPeace]

I've had two tries at it. Some kind of bug has found its way into your text that produces the muddle, and my work-arounds have failed, so I'll try again, having copied the text to Notepad and back.
Well, the stories suggest a range of 30-33 CE. We could work with 31.5 CE if you prefer.
That seems fair.
I agree with that. Mid-80s fits well.
Once Markan priority was pointed out to me, I could never go back. It's the only one that gives an analysis of the synoptics that works.
Doesn't seem controversial.
What persuades you that Matthew was written by 43 CE?

It's in the video. Did you not watch it? Give me one solid un-opinionated reason why Matthew was not written before 43 CE.
Or should I take a wild stab at it? Prophecy determines that a book was writen after the fact. Is that it? Or did I miss?

What persuades you that it was originally written in (Aramaic?) Hebrew?

There is evidence.
Matthew first wrote his Gospel account in Hebrew, according to the ancient testimony of Jerome, Eusebius Pamphili, Origen, Irenaeus, and Papias.
You don't need me to get this info for you, do you? Try here. ...and please don't tell me that modern scholars are somehow gifted with the most "correct" views.

In Matthew, Jesus IS the son of God, and NOT the son of Joseph, so the genealogy couldn't be correct even were it historically credible. Or have I missed where the Tanakh says somewhere that God is of the line of David?

You probably missed maternal genealogy.

 

[blü 2]

Give me one solid un-opinionated reason why Matthew was not written before 43 CE.

Because it was written after Mark, which it uses as its narrative frame, and Mark wasn't written before 75 CE.

Or should I take a wild stab at it? Prophecy determines that a book was writen after the fact. Is that it? Or did I miss?

You're certainly right about "prophecy".

Matthew first wrote his Gospel account in Hebrew, according to the ancient testimony of Jerome, Eusebius Pamphili, Origen, Irenaeus, and Papias.

Thanks for the link. It does you no favors, I fear.

You probably missed maternal genealogy.

I did indeed. What evidence do we have that male Jews in 1st century Judea / Galilee prepared their genealogies down the female instead of the male line?

 

[Samael_Khan]

ok so you grant point 1 in the OP


do you also grant points 2 and 3?

In some cases yes and in some cases no. This is why the gospel writers have points that agree as well as points that conflict. And some points that are inaccurate as other posters have pointed out.