• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

leroy

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
There is nothing to argue with here.

I think the problem is, people want 100% corroboration for everything that happened as if there was a video recording in those days for historical verification

Yet, as one person wrote,

John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.
Sorry but your logic is a huge non sequitur and your claims are refuted by some of the clear errors if not outright falsehoods in the gospels.
 

Batya

Always Forward
Luke's Nativity tale for example. Any student of the Bible should know that at the very least.
I was just wanting you to give some examples if you were going to claim that, not intending to imply I had never heard anyone say there were falsehoods before. Why do you say his story was false, at least picking out his in particular?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
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:
That's as sad as it is silly/

1 the authors intended to report what actually happened
You pretend to know who authored the gospels. You don't.

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.
Not knowing the authors, you know even less about their sources.

3 So if an author tries to be accurate and has reliable sources it follows (inductively) that his work is reliable.
3a is a bogus claim.
3b is a bogus claim.
3c is laughable irrespective of its worthless premise,
i.e., even an honest effort drawing upon reliable sources can produce unreliable results.​
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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…………only
someone who was there or who had access to reliable source could have known all these.

No known sources nor witnesses datable to the life of Christ. No known gospels potentially datable before 50 AD. All the gospels are known to edited, redacted and compiled after 50 AD.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
No known sources nor witnesses datable to the life of Christ. No known gospels potentially datable before 50 AD. All the gospels are known to edited, redacted and compiled after 50 AD.

And what were the sources for new testament ideas? I am about to finish volume one of Letters of a Stoic, and strangely, Seneca sometimes puts forth parallel ideas to those found in Jesus's sayings. Yet, Seneca speaks of gods , and often says he doesn't think an afterlife exists. I posit that there was a foundation of socio-cultural philosophical material circulating at time , as if they were social media type memes.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I was just wanting you to give some examples if you were going to claim that, not intending to imply I had never heard anyone say there were falsehoods before. Why do you say his story was false, at least picking out his in particular?
I am rather surprised that you do not know this. Odds are that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Nazareth. Luke's story fails on several levels. First off the idea of people returning to their ancestral homes for a census is ridiculous. In fact the story itself tells you what it was ridiculous. The point of the census was to tax people appropriately . When one takes that sort of census one counts people where they live and work, not where they came from. Second the date of the census was wrong. Romans kept very good records of that and the date of the census of Quirinius is well known. It was 6 CE, but Jesus was supposedly born before Herod the Great died, which would put his birth about 4 BCE. Modern scholars recognize that this story just does not make sense.

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
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.
leroy," 1 the authors intended to report what actually happened"

In the four Gospels the main event which has been told is Crucifixion of Jesus*, but none of the Gospels writers was an eyewitness of this event, please. Right friend, please?

I understand instead of reading the Gospels, which Jesus never read from, Instead the Christians are to follow Jesus, and hence they are to read from the Book that Jesus used to read from and he acted accordingly. Right friend, please?

Regards
_________
* and the main beliefs of Pauline Christianity are based on this event.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
And what were the sources for new testament ideas? I am about to finish volume one of Letters of a Stoic, and strangely, Seneca sometimes puts forth parallel ideas to those found in Jesus's sayings. Yet, Seneca speaks of gods , and often says he doesn't think an afterlife exists. I posit that there was a foundation of socio-cultural philosophical material circulating at time , as if they were social media type memes.

The gospels evolved from likely a shorter written biography and oral stories of Jesus, and yes as in all ancient religions 'a foundation of socio-cultural philosophical material circulating at time , as if they were social media type memes.'

The early known gospels show additions and editing in the different documents.
 
Last edited:
Top