• 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Are the gospels reliable historical documents?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

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, without apophenia our thinking would be analytic and dispassionate.
Pattern finding and jumping to conclusions was useful among Pleistocene hunter-gatherers. Among today's decision makers -- not so much.
I have heard that for early man jumping to false positives was often far more of a survival trait than jumping to false negatives. The typical example is that Og hears a rustle in the bushes, not seeing an immediate cause he jumps and screams as he runs away. If it is a false positive he is only embarrassed a bit as he runs away. If on the other hand he hears a rustle in the bush and does nothing and it is a false negative he could be dead. Our tendency to jump to false positives when it comes to the unknown may be a survival trait.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have heard that for early man jumping to false positives was often far more of a survival trait than jumping to false negatives. The typical example is that Og hears a rustle in the bushes, not seeing an immediate cause he jumps and screams as he runs away. If it is a false positive he is only embarrassed a bit as he runs away. If on the other hand he hears a rustle in the bush and does nothing and it is a false negative he could be dead. Our tendency to jump to false positives when it comes to the unknown may be a survival trait.
Might also be some welcome comic relief when a mouse scampers out from the bush and Og's buddies fall all over themselves laughing at him. :D
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
well focues on any specific point from this list


Why would you say that the specific point that you selected is non-historical?

What I said about #1 (Jesus existed) was that it's currently debated by biblical historians who are by FAR the most educated on the subject. Other scholars (like theologians) do not care about historicity or any such line of thinking. They assume there was a divine Jesus and do not care about testing this idea. Nor do they care about comparative mythology in a serious way or anything that could lead down a path of discovery that their religion could be as mythical as others.
The debate is between historicity - Jesus was a man and later mythicized or mythicism - Jesus is entirely a myth.
Either way the gospel Jesus is myth so in that sense it really doesn't matter.

Beyond this I'm a bit confused why you would ask why Jesus would be non-historical? I have already given evidence that the religion he comes from looks most likely to be myth, Genesis/flood copied from Mesopotamian sources, 2nd temple Judaism takes all main ideas from the Persian religion including prophecies of a virgin born savior who was part man and all afterlife concepts.
Then we have excellent evidence the gospels were all sourced from Mark who is almost 100% writing fiction which I've been giving examples of over several posts and links to further information based on the work of Richard Carrier.

Then we have zero outside confirmation of any of these events and even worse is the letters of Paul don't know anything about this Jesus. Just a Jesus who rose from the dead which was a "vision".
So Mark comes along 40 years later (a lifetime in 1AD) with a wildly fictitious story that just happens to fulfill OT prophecy, looks a lot like other dying/rising savior gods only found in that region (pre-Jesus), is in a different language and again, is re-working OT stories as well as Jesus Ben Annius tales and more. I've already given many examples of how we know it's myth also by the improbable events, lack of sourcing (no histories were written this way) and explained the problem of embarrassment and so on several posts ago.

There is literally no reason to think this would be historical unless you make an argument for a human Jesus who was a teacher but even that has problems. I pointed out one issue with the brother of the Lord thing.
Aside from OT stories, Josephus stories and obvious parables even the name of the main character is suspicious,:

"Another interesting coincidence is the name Barabbas itself, an unusual name that means ‘Son of the Father’ in Aramaic, and Jesus is often portrayed as the ‘Son of the Father’ as well. So in this story we have two sons of the father; one released into the wild mob carrying the sins of Israel (such as murder and rebellion), effectively serving as an allegorical scapegoat (Barabbas), and the other sacrificed so his blood may atone for the sins of Israel (Jesus) — and we have one bearing the sins literally, and the other bearing the sins figuratively (just as we find in the Yom Kippur ceremony of Leviticus 16 in the Old Testament). We get further confirmation of this belief in the Epistle to the Hebrews (9-10), where we hear Jesus’ death described as the ultimate Yom Kippur atonement sacrifice. Interestingly enough, it is also implied in this part of Hebrews that Jesus’ death and resurrection would have taken place in the heavens, as that was where the most perfect atonement sacrifice would be made and where the most perfect holy temple would be for which to pour the blood of that sacrifice (another element supporting the contention that Jesus was initially believed to be a celestial deity rather than a historical person). So Mark here appears to be telling us through his own parable, to reject the sins of the Jews (notably violence and rebellion) and instead embrace the eternal salvation offered through the atonement sacrifice of Jesus Christ."

So why use OT stories? Because Jesus is the new Moses, replaces the temple and updates the religion.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
1 Given the context of multiple texts ( Galatians 1:18-19 for example) , it’s clear that the author is talking about biololical brothers. We have these type of examples both in Paul and the gospels.

Galatians 1:18-19 for example


The point that Paul made was to show that James had a different relation with James than with Peter, if they where “Spiritual brothers” then Paul would have not excluded Peter from that description.

This is not an argument for the gospel Jesus but only for a human Jesus. The leap from a human teacher to demigod is impossible to make without far better evidence.
But here it is not clear enough to claim he means biological brother. He easily could be distinguishing that Cephus is brother of the Lord, not an Apostolic Brother of the Lord. Paul uses that Greek work in another setting to do this. He does not ever mention a biological brother.
Scholarship on this:

"in Galatians 1:18-19 because there the James thus called a brother of the Lord is being differentiated from Cephas (Peter) the Apostle. As I wrote in my summary, that’s indeed true: Paul is making a distinction; he uses the full term for a Christian (“Brothers of the Lord”) every time he needs to distinguish apostolic from non-apostolic Christians. The James in Galatians 1 is not an Apostle. He is just a rank-and-file Christian. Merely a Brother of the Lord, not an Apostolic Brother of the Lord. The only Apostle he met at that time, he says, was Cephas (Peter), the first Apostle (according to 1 Corinthians 15:5 in light of 1 Corinthians 9:1). Likewise the “Brothers of the Lord” Paul references in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are, again, non-apostolic Christians—and thus being distinguished from Apostles, including, again, the first Apostle, Cephas. Given what we have from Paul, this is just as likely, if not more likely, than the alternative reading, because we have evidence direct from Paul that he knows of cultic Brothers of the Lord (as in Romans 8:29 he says all Christians are brothers of the Lord), but no evidence he knows of biological brothers of the Lord, a significantly different category of person."

mark 6:3

In this context its obvious that the author is talking about biologival brothers.

I have given more than enough evidence on Mark to discount this as fiction. Scholars don't even try to use this in favor of historicity.


2 From the point of view of the authors of the NT This has zero theological significance, James could have been a “spiritual brother” and that would not affect any doctrine of the early church …. So why would they lie?

Mark is crafting serious religious fiction. He is not lying in the traditional sense. There are thousands of religious scripture that are serious works of literary art and well intentioned. Yet we know they are not true. Mark is clearly basing his narrative on existing stories - OT, Josephus and fictional biographies were very common in this time. So if Paul's letters had a possible mention of a brother that is plenty of motivation to give him a brother.
At any rate this does not translate to a demigod. It translates to historicity of a man. In other words if Jesus was a teacher then he probably had a brother and when he was mythicized into a demigod obviously this was kept in.


3 Josephus also mentions “James the brother of Jesus”

Looking at 2 biblical historians, Carrier is sure they are late Christain interpolations.

"Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus."

Carrier has a paper demonstrating the TF is also fraud and points to another paper:

"
G.J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,” in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (vol. 13, 1995), pp. 59-77. Goldberg demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item). There are some narrative differences (which are expected due to the contexts being different and as a result of common kinds of authorial embellishment), and there is a twentieth correspondence out of order (identifying Jesus as “the Christ”). But otherwise, the coincidences here are very improbable on any other hypothesis than dependence.

Goldberg also shows that the Testimonium contains vocabulary and phrasing that is particularly Christian (indeed, Lukan) and un-Josephan. He concludes that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus slavishly copied a Christian source, and contrary to what Goldberg concludes, the latter is wholly implausible (Josephus would treat such a source more critically, creatively, and informedly)."
Jesus in Josephus • Richard Carrier


Bart Ehrman is a bit more optimistic but 100% believes Christains altered the TV so Josephus may have just been reporting on stories he heard. As you can see this only would support historicity, not supernatural tales.

"
If we take out the Christianized portions of the passage, what we are left with, according to one of the most convincing modern studies, is the following:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out. (John Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1991; vol. 1, p. 61)

If this is something Josephus wrote, as most scholars continue to think, then it indicates that Jesus was a wise man and a teacher who performed startling deeds and as a consequence found a following among both Jews and Greeks; it states that he was accused by Jewish leaders before Pilate, who condemned him to be crucified; and it points out that his followers remained devoted to him even afterward (Ant. 18.3.3).

It is useful to know that Josephus had this much information about Jesus. Unfortunately, there is not much here to help us understand specifically what Jesus said and did. We might conclude that he was considered important enough for Josephus to mention, although not as important as, say, John the Baptist or many other Palestinian Jews who were thought to be prophets at the time, about whom Josephus says a good deal more. We will probably never know if Josephus actually had more information about Jesus at his disposal or if he told us all that he knew."
Do Any Ancient Jewish Sources Mention Jesus? Weekly Mailbag | The Bart Ehrman Blog


This is heavily debated however, in Carrier's paper he concludes it's entirely BS.
There is an article here:
Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

that cover all of the pros/cons regarding if Josephus even wrote this at all. The cons are very convincing. But even if Josephus wrote what Ehrman said it means there was a teacher named Jesus or he was going on stories he heard. If he wrote more about John the Baptist and other prophets then this isn't a good source at all for Christianity.
I'm a bit skeptical of Ehrman. He's an excellent historian but he built his career on showing Jesus was a real man (and definitely not a demigod and the gospels are fiction) but Carrier did a good job of debunking the reasons for historicity and Ehrman refuses to debate him.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
I'm not a scholar of course so this is just my opinion: Mark was the first to do this. I"m not sure if he was trying to convert pagans to Christianity with his gospel the way the later authors were. I read somewhere that Mark's gospel was written as a passion play, sort of like the Greek tragedies, meant to be played on stage or something. Consequently, he wasn't bringing in all the supernatural stuff found in the later gospels. It's pretty bare bones, kind of like an outline upon which later authors would pile on their own bits of supernatural fantastic wizardry and fluff the story. Jesus is just an ordinary prophet in Mark's play, not the god son we see in John.

The OT scriptures Mark drew on were 500-1000 years old and obviously written for that time. Nobody in the OT had the slightest inkling Jesus would come along so how could they possibly be about him? That's why we have all these bizarre passages being painfully twisted and turned into something that sounds just remotely like a prophecy being fulfilled. The writers are simply trying to pound a square a peg into a round hole and not doing a very good job of it, like the "suffering servant" thing in Isaiah, which it is stated right there a chapter earlier that Israel is God's suffering servant, not Jesus. But count on a 1st century pulp fiction writer trying to get a point across to use the most wildly inaccurate, irrelevant scriptures to prop up a mythical being.

Even Christian scholarship considers Mark first now but somehow this is still ignored in religious circles?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member

This explains this even better. Here Carrier demonstrates with examples and links to several papers on the subject on how Mark uses Paul's Epistles in crafting his story.
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier
He also demonstrates a chiastic structure that Mark uses using Paul's writings that would be incredible unlikely that he wrote this independent.

One example is how Mark created the last supper from a statement from Paul. Paul claimed during a vision Jesus said:

"For I received from the Lord what I also handed over to you, that the Lord Jesus, during the night he was handed over, took bread, and having given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in the remembrance of me.” Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you might drink it in remembrance of me.” For as often as you might eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes"

Mark changes this into an actual event with people:

"
While they were eating, having taken bread, and having blessed it, he broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then, having taken a cup, and having given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, that never again shall I drink from the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” And having sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives."


Carrier points out:

"Notice what’s changed. Paul is describing Jesus miming some actions and explaining their importance. His audience is future Christians. Mark has transformed this into a narrative story by adding people being present and having Jesus interact with them: now “they were eating” (Paul does not mention anyone actually eating) and Jesus gave the bread “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and instructs them to “take” it (no such instruction in Paul); and Jesus gave the cup “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and “they all drink it” (no such event in Paul); and Jesus describes the meaning of the cup “to them” (no such audience in Paul).

Then Jesus says he will not drink “again” until the kingdom comes, a statement that fits a narrative event, implying Jesus drank, and here drank, and often drank, and will pause drinking until the end times. Likewise Jesus “blesses” the bread (which also doesn’t happen in Paul), implying the actual literal bread he has in his hand is thereby rendered special to the ones about to eat it; whereas in Paul that makes no sense, because no one is there to eat it, Jesus is just depicting and explaining a ritual others will perform in his honor, not that he is performing for them. So it is notable that all of these things are absent from Paul. There is no narrative context of this being the last of many cups Jesus has drunk and of Jesus pausing drinking or of his blessing the bread and giving it to people present. In Paul, the whole scene is an instruction to future followers, not a description of a meal Jesus once had.

This is how Mark reifies a revelation in Paul, relating Jesus’s celestial instructions for performing a sacrament and its meaning, into a narrative historical event. Mark has even taken Paul’s language, about Jesus being “handed over,” which in Paul means by God (Romans 8:32, exact same word) and even by himself (Galatians 2:20, exact same word), not by Judas, and converted it into a whole new narrative of a betrayal by “the Jews” (the meaning of Judas, i.e. Judah, i.e. Judea). Paul has no knowledge of a betrayal. Indeed in Paul, all of “the twelve” get to see Jesus right after his death and are recognized as apostles (1 Corinthians 15:5.

He also points out Clement 1 uses this story before Mark but doesn't know about Judas because Mark hadn't invented it yet.

So this and many other examples give evidence that Mark used Paul as a source as well, which explains the brother thing.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
therefore they were in a position to know about Jesus and his life. So unless you what to affirm that they were intentionally lying, we should trust them as good reliable sources.

I'm confused? You call for a leap of trust? Yet we have incredible evidence of what the actual sources are for the gospels and you suggest we ignore all that evidence and then while ignoring all that we make a leap of faith to assume the gospel writers were telling a real story?
How about no leap of faith and we follow actual evidence?

As I have pointed out we have clear evidence Mark used Paul's writings:
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier

also used Josephus, Psalms and all sorts of triadic/ring structures which have to be made up. This is a fictional story?
Here is some of it visually

at 23:07 is Luke using Kings then he goes on to explain ring structure, baptism/crucifixion narratives matching, at 36:58 one from Matthew, these are literary devices that you have to invent. There are papers (and another Carrier video) on Acts and it's sources.
So we know the sources, it is not from a person but from other fiction. No leap of faith is needed, we have plenty of evidence.

Calling it "lying" is odd. All of the other religions including the 36 other Christian gospels (some which were considered mainstream in the 2nd century and were more Gnostic) were also "lying" but in these cases we all know it was a myth. Calling these lies as if that is improbable so it must be true is not a valid point because we all know all myths are not actually true. We know the 36 other gospels are "lies". We know the Thomas gospel is a "lie". But it was written to be a serious and real account of Jesus. So was the Infancy gospel where Jesus kills another child for harassing him as abuses his superpowers causing all kinds of trouble but then resurrects them at the end. One of the Dead Sea Scrolls was found unfinished in a cave next to a scroll of sayings by another prophet and they were in the middle of transcribing these sayings to a Jesus gospel and making them into Jesus sayings. This story is told by Richard Carrier in an interview. That would also be a "lie".

Still millions of people follow them. So the idea that this one version of one religion cannot be "lies" is just nonsense. Yes, it's made up. Same as the Gnostic gospels and the 7 other resurrecting savior gods in that region before Jesus and Krishna and about 10,000 other stories.
It is believed in scholarship that each gospel was written to be the actual one true gospel rather than ending up with a collection of conflicting stories.
When Constantine choose the final 4 it's likely he chose the 4 churches that were in the highest favor and each had a different gospel and they figured they would work it out. As Bart Ehrman says in one of his lectures there are serious contradictions.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
As I have pointed out we have clear evidence Mark used Paul's writings:
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier.

That is junk, honestly.

Paul didn't ever tell anything about Jesus, what he did or what he said, apart from during the last meal and on the last day, that was it...... Paul wasn't the slightest bit interested in what Jesus was involved in.

And so most of the details in Mark's Gospel is a deposition of what was passed on by oral tradition, explained by Cephas himself or actually seen. The writer of G-Mark was definitely there at the arrest, I reckon.

See for yourself........ write down a single event that Carrier claims Mark got from Paul's epistles. You won't find a thing.!
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
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.
Leonard Nimoy has a book title called I am Spock.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
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.
It only makes sense for the authors if they are humans. Wouldn’t God know what happened?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
This is meaningless. That I have "access to good information" about my friend does not at all substantiate that what I claim about my friend,particularly when my claims are completely implausible and fantastical, are actually true.


Once again you are strawmaning the argument. I didn’t say that you having information about your friend automatically imply that all you write about him is true.

What I said is that you having accurate information about your friend strongly suggest that you are in a position to know stuff about your friend. …. So for example Given that you were correct about your friends name, family, birthdate, school, job, wife, details about his wedding, details about jobbies, address, etc. the probably* you are also correct about his conversion to Buddhism.




Again, thoroughly myth-laden and theologically motivated telling of events there
. :shrug:
*this quote is related to you denying the crusifixtioni of Jesus.



Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus:


Historical Jesus - Wikipedia

Honeslty it seems to me that you are just applying “flatt earther logic”. You are just being skeptical about everything without any justification.

The consensus among scholars is that the crucifixion of Jesus is a historical event. So under what basis would you say that scholars are wrong?

The crucifixion of Jesus has been verified by multiple independent sources (gnostic gospels, John, Paul, Tacitus) this is the main reasons why Scholars agree that this is a historical event.
So if this evidence is good enough to convince scholars, why isn’t it good enough to convince you?





----
see @Valjean I quoted a specific point made by left Coast, and I explaied exactly why I disagree ......... whycant you do the same with my alleged mistakes?.................why are you unable to quote a specific claim and explain exactly why you think I m wrong?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Sure. A claim is something that is stated. We do not know whether a claim is true without supporting evidence. In this case you are claiming that the Bible is historically accurate. All of your arguments for it of course have failed. So you need to be reminded that the Bible is the claim here. It is not the evidence that supports it. You are currently relying mainly on circular reasoning.

A claim is something that is stated

ok thats the meaning of "claim"


care to explain what you mean by evidnece? a few examples of evidnece for a historical fact woudl help me understand meaning of "evidence"..........
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ok thats the meaning of "claim"


care to explain what you mean by evidnece? a few examples of evidnece for a historical fact woudl help me understand meaning of "evidence"..........
No, I offered to go over the concept of evidence far too many times in the past. It is time to see if you can learn on your own. Or you could apologize for past offenses of ignoring corrections. If you can't do that there is no point in going on.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Once again you are strawmaning the argument. I didn’t say that you having information about your friend automatically imply that all you write about him is true.

What I said is that you having accurate information about your friend strongly suggest that you are in a position to know stuff about your friend. …. So for example Given that you were correct about your friends name, family, birthdate, school, job, wife, details about his wedding, details about jobbies, address, etc. the probably* you are also correct about his conversion to Buddhism.

Again, no....it doesn't. You simply are incorrect here. Me having lots of information about my friend does not at all indicate that my story about the Buddha emerging from the depths of the Earth to appear to my friend is a remotely accurate story. And if I spin such fanciful stories, which are obviously disconnected from how the world works, you would be right to be highly skeptical of even my mundane claims about my friend, without direct verification.

And again, I repeat that we have no idea where the Gospel writers specifically got their information, nor do we have anywhere near the level of specificity mention in my counter-example. So the situation is worse than my having knowledge of my friend.

Honeslty it seems to me that you are just applying “flatt earther logic”. You are just being skeptical about everything without any justification.

The consensus among scholars is that the crucifixion of Jesus is a historical event. So under what basis would you say that scholars are wrong?

Incorrect sir. That is not the current consensus of scholars. Your reference to that claim is nearly 20 years old. The current state of the field among secular academics in Jesus studies is that the Gospels have been so thoroughly debunked as sources of accurate history, that the debate now is whether they even contain enough accurate information to determine if Jesus was even a real historical person at all.

The crucifixion of Jesus has been verified by multiple independent sources (gnostic gospels, John, Paul, Tacitus) this is the main reasons why Scholars agree that this is a historical event.

Those are not all independent sources, nor are any of them firsthand sources. Paul's only information about Jesus, by his own admission, came from direct revelation/visions of Jesus in heaven, not witnessing anything Jesus did on Earth. John, if by that you mean the Gospel, is the latest and least reliable historical source of information of all the 4 Gospels. Tacitus' reference post-dates the Gospels (other than maybe John). So do the Gnostic Gospels (which as I recall, claim Jesus wasn't actually crucified, he just made it look that way).

Furthermore, I thought we were nixing from the Gospels all theologically motivated content? The Passion narratives are obviously theologically motivated and part of the literary construction and theological argument presented by the Gospels. And are, again, interwoven with absurd events like darkness covering "the whole earth" for 3 hours in the middle of the day while Jesus was on the cross, or Jesus' death sentence being handed down in a bizarre exchange for another criminal's release - a completely ahistorical event but one which theologically makes perfect sense in the Jewish context of Jesus as Passover lamb.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
It only makes sense for the authors if they are humans. Wouldn’t God know what happened?

If the gospels showed perfect similarity in retelling of a story experience would tell us that they are written by the same person or copied from each other. The more they differ (obviously to a certain extent) then the more reliable they are. It is the reason why scholars are so sure that certain events, like a man named Jesus being crucified, happened.

God would know what happens, unless he has a bad memory.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
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's good to know also along these lines that Mark is widely thought to have been written down between 66-70AD, which puts it only about 35 years (roughly) after Christ.

That means of course that a 20 yr old that heard Christ in person still surviving would be in their mid fifties. While the average life expectancy in the era for those surviving already to at least age 10 was 47 if I recall, that simply confirms that a some portion would of course live longer, and 55 isn't that far past 47, so it will be still a thick part of the curve.

Ergo there would be many survivors still around.

Even though some of them passing would be the main motivator to write Mark, we can just be certain Mark was written while living eye winesses were available, and of course many would have heard their stories and the stories of those only recently passing also.

While it's true that groups can preserve oral traditions with surprising precision, that's not even needed in this case, we can see.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's good to know also along these lines that Mark is widely thought to have been written down between 66-70AD, which puts it only about 35 years (roughly) after Christ.

That means of course that a 20 yr old that heard Christ in person still surviving would be in their mid fifties. While the average life expectancy in the era for those surviving already to at least age 10 was 47 if I recall, that simply confirms that a some portion would of course live longer, and 55 isn't that far past 47, so it will be still a thick part of the curve.

Ergo there would be many survivors still around.

Even though some of them passing would be the main motivator to write Mark, we can just be certain Mark was written while living eye winesses were available, and of course many would have heard their stories and the stories of those only recently passing also.

While it's true that groups can preserve oral traditions with surprising precision, that's not even needed in this case, we can see.
There is a problem with eyewitnesses, especially over such long periods of time. People very often see what they want to see. As a result eyewitnesses are not all that reliable. Even worse those that are most passionate often are the most likely to misinterpret the events. Look at all of the "witnesses" in our recent election. When tested the eyewitnesses very often badly misinterpreted what they saw. Most of the corrections of what they misinterpreted seemed to come from other Republicans. And when there claims were tested they always failed, take Georgia with its multiple recounts, one of them a hand recount of all paper ballots plus an audit of signatures of mail in ballots. No cheating found. And massive cheating would have shown up. Add on to the fact that when people remember things in the past they tend to change the memories a bit and the stories do not appear to be reliable at all.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
If the gospels showed perfect similarity in retelling of a story experience would tell us that they are written by the same person or copied from each other. The more they differ (obviously to a certain extent) then the more reliable they are. It is the reason why scholars are so sure that certain events, like a man named Jesus being crucified, happened.

God would know what happens, unless he has a bad memory.

The problem is that the Gospels do copy each other frequently. And when they disagree, they frequently do so in a way that is clearly an intentional edit of what the previous Gospel writer wrote. And since Mark is an obviously unreliable source, the other Gospels cribbing and redacting him in theologically motivated ways are obviously not trustworthy either. And as I've tried to explain, that includes even their reporting of seemingly mundane details.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Again, no....it doesn't. You simply are incorrect here. Me having lots of information about my friend does not at all indicate that my story about the Buddha emerging from the depths of the Earth to appear to my friend is a remotely accurate story. And if I spin such fanciful stories, which are obviously disconnected from how the world works, you would be right to be highly skeptical of even my mundane claims about my friend, without direct verification.

Me having lots of information about my friend does not at all indicate that my story about the Buddha emerging from the depths of the Earth to appear to my friend is a remotely accurate story

Ok that is a strwaman and I explained to you multiple times that this is not what I am claiming, I honestly and sincerely did my best effort in explaining my point, so ether

1 I am very bad in explaining stuff

2 you are very bad in understanding stuff

3 you are being dishonest.

Don’t worry I can take the blaim, maybe I am the one who is very bad in explaining stuff.


Last try….. You having the information (and the intent to report real historical events) is evidence that your friend had an experience that he interpreted as Buddha emerging from the earth and talking to him.

Multiple independent sources reporting that evident count as additional evidence

That your friend became a Buddhist and lost all his money as a consequence of that alleged experience counts as additional evidence.

None of this proves that the event actually happened but it proves with high degree of certainty that your friend had an experience that he interpreted as Buddha Emerging




Incorrect sir. That is not the current consensus of scholars. Your reference to that claim is nearly 20 years old.

Ok so in summery

1 I claimed the consensus among scholars is that Jesus died by Crucifixion.

2 you answered NO because the source is 20yo

So do you have an other source, better than mine, suggesting otherwise?
 
Top