Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[nPeace]

Not enough information to base the answer on.
Everyone is essentially a bit biased - and not all forms of bias are necessarily bad.

Let's have an analogy. Suppose you wish to know about the life of Maradonna. You go to the store and 3 biographies are available.
1 is authored by a guy who worships Maradonna like some kind of god.
2 is authored by a guy who couldn't stand Maradonna and thinks he's overrated.
3. is authored by an impartial biographer who only cares about accuracy.


Which one of these do you think will give you the most accurate story of Maradonna's life?



Gospel writers fall in camp 1 of the Maradonna analogy.



Yes, true. If you believe/assume X is the case, then you can say that you believe/assume X is the case.

Not really sure how that helps your case though.
Believing it doesn't make it so.




I see what you're saying and I think you are correct.
The writers of the gospels obviously were biased, since they were believers.
They are the equivalent of the guy who worships Maradonna and then writes his biography.

You should know by now what I think about your strawman analogies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good. So what was your point again?

Religious scripture isn't based on multiple independent corroborating sources.

No. That would be you, based on the fact that you made some point about "peer review process exists exactly for that purpose: remove the personal bias."

I have no clue how you understood that from what I said.
What part of that quote makes you think that I believe peer review doesn't exist in the historical or archeological sciences?

Or were you just spouting words into the air? If not, what was your point? How did it relate to anything?

Religious scripture isn't subject to peer review.
It is instead just believed.

More spouting... ?

Spouting what? facts? sure.

Bias... ?

Not sure what you mean.
You being a creationist tells us all we need to know about your grasp of how science is done.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you read the Bible?

Yes.

Try reading it again... from Genesis.

Why? Did it magically turn into something else then religious scripture since last time I read it?

...snip bible citations...

What's your point?

Yes. Religious people are historians, in the same way they are scientists.
Because one is religious, does not mean that everything they write will be religious.

The bible, just like the quran or the bagavad ghita, is religious scripture. There's no way around that.

No clue why you insist on contesting that.

When a scientist writes a paper, we don't say, "Well because he is religious, what he wrote is religious."

But if the religious scientist writes religious scripture, we do say it is religious scripture.
Science papers are science papers - no matter who writes them or what their personal beliefs are.

Just like religious scripture is religious scripture - no matter who writes it.

What bizarre and faulty reasoning... putting it mildly.

The fault is all yours. I never said anything like what you are insinuating. You're arguing a gigantic strawman.
At no point did I say the bible is religious scripture "because it was written by religious people", as if everything a religious person writes down makes it religious scripture.

That's just your very very bizarre interpretation of what I actually said.

Me calling the gospels (and by extension the bible) religious scripture is based entirely on WHAT IT SAYS, not on who wrote it.

In fact................................... we don't even know who wrote it.

The Bible is largely historical

No. It's mostly fictional.
Genesis, exodus, babel, the flood... none of this ever occurred. Demonstrably false.

That's what the OP is saying in relation to the Gospels.

The gospels are "accurate history" in the exact same way as Marvel stories are "accurate history".
The only difference is that Marvel stories are universally recognized as fictional, while certain people insist on the gospels being completely true.

Please don't try to pin your shortcomings and rambling babble on me. They are yours. You are free to keep them, or change them. I encourage the latter.

Why would I change a correct understanding on the difference between a science paper and religious scripture?

 

[leroy]

We all have goals in mind. I'm sure you do. In what way are you biased, and how are the writers similar?

The authors of the Gosples where biased because their goal was to promote Christianity, but this is not a big deal, most ancient documents are biased and scholars know how to deal with it.

Information that is “too good to be true” should be taken with more skepticism.

In the case of the gospels things like fullfied prophecies or miracles are “too good to be true” so the standard of evidence for accepting this claim should be greater than the standard for accepting a “neutral claim”

 

[leroy]

So according to what I understand the term bias to mean, if the writers were biased, the OP can't be correct. Or the OP would be biased.
Do you see what I am saying?

Biased, doesn’t mean “wrong”… it simply means that you should be more skeptil and apply a higher standard of evidence when it comment to claims that are “too good to be true”……………..usually historians require 2 independent sources in order to establish as fact something that is too good to be true……… but we Christians can meet this standard, the core of Christianity is based on historical facts that can be verified by multiple independent sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just picking that one law out of the 613....
I have often wondered about some of the OT laws.
One day I mentioned this law to an old Rabbi, hunching my shoulders and rolling eyes etc...
He said,'Oh yes, a status thing, you know.'
Me: 'Errr what?'
He.' You still have such laws today, which seem most strange to outsiders but to 'insiders' they make perfect sense.

He then showed my a picture of the assembled dignitaries at the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, and he started to explain the rules which dictated how long or wide an ermine should be etc.

When I pointed out that such events were rare he pointed out that junior barristers wear a flinmsy little wig whereas Queen's Counselors a much finer specimen, and judges.....! It went on...

And then he explained that the five peasant groups had worn wool whereas tghe Levite 'classes' wore linen spun from the flax plant.

He told me to think about modern day business dress if I should ever wonder again about mixing various cloths. Our modern day taboos and fashions beat the hell out of the OT dress laws.

I did not pick out just one law. I stopped reading at the false claim. I picked out three laws, one of them a Commandment. I could have kept going with silly laws and yet no law against slavery.

Ask your question properly without a falsehood and I will respond.

 

[halbhh]

I doubt have a problem with the teachings of Jesus. It is what the rest of the Bible, including Paul teach that is so problematic. With all of the silly laws on mixed fabrics, two different crops in the same field and banning cheeseburgers why couldn't God have just said "Slavery is bad . .. mkay? Its bad. Bad."

Please be sure to see the key question at the end (it's a real question to you also).

Why didn't God just say: "Stop slavery in all forms, all, now." ?

Why not?

Here's why:
When God did give really basic laws, the 'ten commandments' which are so clear, and not hard to follow with a bit of will:

Doable Laws:

• Don't murder.
• Don't steal.
• Don't seduce your neighbor's spouse.
• Don't worship idols (and of course, later extra warnings, repeated to say: don't sacrifice your children in fire to idols)

Then the actual outcome was that the Israelites broke these laws over and over and over.

Just over and over.

The old testament is like a lengthy list of examples of them just breaking even doable laws over and over and over again.

Consider: slavery was a world wide human practice, in all nations practically.

So...do you think a big jump in law, far past the current culture at that time, a total revolution, all-at-once, could have worked?

What would have happened? Maybe something like Prohibition: increasing disregard for the law everywhere, so that even the rule of law itself becomes weakened also.

To actually do Matthew 7:12 well, consistently...requires something profound to change in the individual.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You should know by now what I think about your strawman analogies.

You get first place in dodge ball.


There's no strawman there. It's just an illustration to clarify what "bias" is all about and how it affects ones beliefs and opinions.

You refuse to answer the question concerning which book would give you the most accurate information, because you know where it will lead to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but we Christians can meet this standard, the core of Christianity is based on historical facts that can be verified by multiple independent sources.

This is hogwash and it has been explained in this thread alone multiple times by multiple people how it is hogwash.

 

[Estro Felino]

One might as well say that sure, there could be mistakes in episodes of Star Trek, but that doesn't mean there can't be hundreds of details correct, so we are justified in believing that Klingons are real.

LOL...that's a good point.
The truth is that Gospels were not written by historians. Their purpose was purely religious, theological.

 

[halbhh]

the golden rule is not even original to christianity

Of course not!

I bet it has been discovered millions or even perhaps billions of times.

It's so obvious. You and I probably both had a form of it just on our own in early childhood, like a "do good to others" feeling or such. ( a precursor to what can later be intellectualized into a general form)

If The Golden Rule had not been widely repeated throughout the world in various forms, then it would probably have been a not-great idea. (Because it's so obvious.)

What is good and helpful to live ought to be discovered over and over, and endure over the centuries also.

What is good (or true) endures, what is bad (or false) fades away.

So, at the minimum, if Christ saying a form of the Golden Rule (He uses a full proactive form actually) is to be expected -- if he has much wisdom at all.

If he is wise, he ought to be at least able to do that, state easily discoverable good rules for living life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please be sure to see the key question at the end (it's a real question to you also).

Why didn't God just say: "Stop slavery in all forms, all, now." ?

Why not?

Here's why:
When God did give really basic laws, the 'ten commandments' which are so clear, and not hard to follow with a bit of will:

Doable Laws:

• Don't murder.
• Don't steal.
• Don't seduce your neighbor's spouse.
• Don't worship idols (and of course, later extra warnings, repeated to say: don't sacrifice your children in fire to idols)

Then the actual outcome was that the Israelites broke these laws over and over and over.

Just over and over.

The old testament is like a lengthy list of examples of them just breaking even doable laws over and over and over again.

Consider: slavery was a world wide human practice, in all nations practically.

So was human sacrifice, homosexuality, group sex, etc etc etc etc.

But anyway... so what are you saying, that this GOD is going to "accommodate" for arguably one of the most evil practices ever invented by mankind??

You say yourself that people didn't keep the commandments (and they still don't after all these millenia). So what's one more law they won't keep?

You make no sense.

So...do you think a big jump in law, far past the current culture at that time, a total revolution, all-at-once, could have worked?

If the bible would have stated in clear terms that slavery is not a good thing, instead of chapter after chapter of allowing and regulating it, it wouldn't have taken us 2000 years to get rid of it.

Remember, in the US, the south was waving with their bible as an argument for why slavery was okay.

Let's meet you half way (for no reason, I might add) and say that instead of forbidding it, he could have also discouraged it. But not even that. Not even a HINT of that.

Instead, verse after verse which can be summarized as "do it! I'm fine with it!"

To actually do Matthew 7:12 well, consistently...requires something profound to change in the individual.

The golden rules is not original to christianity or even abrahamic religion. Not even remotely.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course not!

I bet it has been discovered millions or even perhaps billions of times.

It's so obvious.

Right, so why are you putting it up as if it is the bible's way of discouraging slavery?

You and I probably both had a form of it just on our own in early childhood, like a "do good to others" feeling or such. ( a precursor to what can later be intellectualized into a general form)

If The Golden Rule had not been widely repeated throughout the world in various forms, then it would probably have been a not-great idea. (Because it's so obvious.)

What is good and helpful to live ought to be discovered over and over, and endure over the centuries also.

What is good (or true) endures, what is bad (or false) fades away.

So, at the minimum, if Christ saying a form of the Golden Rule (He uses a full proactive form actually) is to be expected -- if he has much wisdom at all.

If he is wise, he ought to be at least able to do that, state easily discoverable good rules for living life.

Yet he comes short of condemning slavery.
There's not even a hint in the bible that slavery is bad.
Instead, it explicitly allows it and regulates it.

Not mentioning it at all would have even been better then what it currently says.

To defend these parts of the bible, to me, is like the pinnacle of the moral bankruptcy.

 

[halbhh]

So was human sacrifice, homosexuality, group sex, etc etc etc etc.

But anyway... so what are you saying, that this GOD is going to "accommodate" for arguably one of the most evil practices ever invented by mankind??

You say yourself that people didn't keep the commandments (and they still don't after all these millenia). So what's one more law they won't keep?

You make no sense.



If the bible would have stated in clear terms that slavery is not a good thing, instead of chapter after chapter of allowing and regulating it, it wouldn't have taken us 2000 years to get rid of it.

Remember, in the US, the south was waving with their bible as an argument for why slavery was okay.

Let's meet you half way (for no reason, I might add) and say that instead of forbidding it, he could have also discouraged it. But not even that. Not even a HINT of that.

Instead, verse after verse which can be summarized as "do it! I'm fine with it!"



The golden rules is not original to christianity or even abrahamic religion. Not even remotely.

Do you think slavery has ended?

Even in the United States?

Think again.

It's widespread.

Example: at times young naive girls (or boys too some) are tricked into sexual trafficking and kept in that service (slavery) by threats and violence.

And that's not the only form today. That's only a well known one.

Slavery in general form is any way someone takes advantage of others in a way that steals from them for the gain of the perpetrator. The theft of their time/labor/self.

Guess whether that is rare...

What is needed isn't just to end one obvious form, and then we just get 3 new forms to replace it...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please be sure to see the key question at the end (it's a real question to you also).

Why didn't God just say: "Stop slavery in all forms, all, now." ?

Why not?

Here's why:
When God did give really basic laws, the 'ten commandments' which are so clear, and not hard to follow with a bit of will:

Doable Laws:

• Don't murder.
• Don't steal.
• Don't seduce your neighbor's spouse.
• Don't worship idols (and of course, later extra warnings, repeated to say: don't sacrifice your children in fire to idols)

Then the actual outcome was that the Israelites broke these laws over and over and over.

Just over and over.

The old testament is like a lengthy list of examples of them just breaking even doable laws over and over and over again.

Consider: slavery was a world wide human practice, in all nations practically.

So...do you think a big jump in law, far past the current culture at that time, a total revolution, all-at-once, could have worked?

What would have happened? Maybe something like Prohibition: increasing disregard for the law everywhere, so that even the rule of law itself becomes weakened also.

To actually do Matthew 7:12 well, consistently...requires something profound to change in the individual.

And yet he clearly endorsed slavery by telling people where and from whom they could buy slaves. He endorsed slavery by telling people how severely they could punish their slaves, and it was quite severe.

If he meant those laws to apply to slavery he would never have endorsed by telling people how to supposedly break those laws. You have no case.

 

[halbhh]

And yet he clearly endorsed slavery by telling people where and from whom they could buy slaves. He endorsed slavery by telling people how severely they could punish their slaves, and it was quite severe.

If he meant those laws to apply to slavery he would never have endorsed by telling people how to supposedly break those laws. You have no case.

My best understanding of the incremental laws --
detailed laws that make small incremental changes, just like U.S. Law has done usually (with the notable and dramatic failure of the big-step law of Prohibition) --

...is that after Israel failed repeatedly to do even the simple basic 10 commandment law, is that God apparently (by the text, it appears) chose to give them a lot of small incremental rules that were small incremental steps that started where they were.

Presumably because He saw that a big Prohibition like law would just totally fail -- not just fail 50% or 80%, but fail soon at a100% rate.

So, God chose to do what might work, instead of what could never work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My best understanding of the incremental laws --
detailed laws that make small incremental changes, just like U.S. Law has done usually (with the notable and dramatic failure of the big-step law of Prohibition) --

...is that after Israel failed repeatedly to do even the simple basic 10 commandment law, is that God apparently (by the text, it appears) chose to give them a lot of small incremental rules that were small incremental steps that started where they were.

Presumably because He saw that a big Prohibition like law would just totally fail -- not just fail 50% or 80%, but fail soon at a100% rate.

So, God chose to do what might work, instead of what could never work.

That is not a valid excuse because God had to know that many of his laws would not be followed. You are merely grasping at straws at this point. When events occur in the same way that they would have without any God at all you bring your version of God under extreme doubt.

 

[leroy]

They never actually were independent. Mark is copied by the other two, very heavily by Matthew and Luke. But yes, once you put a group of items through a filter they are no longer indpendent since they all rely on passing that same filter.

It is amazing that you do not understand this. Once you eliminate the opposition the remaining items are not independent.

First: that is a Straw man , I NEVER SAID THAT Mark Luke and Matt are independnent, I said that John Paul and Mark are independnent

Second: your “filter thing” doesn’t change the fact that the sources are independent, all its shows is that some guy from Rome liked* some documents and dislike others.

For example if 2 witnesses saw a car accident, then you would have 2 independent sources, this would still be true even if in 400 years someone else decides to put both testimonies in a single book

 

[nPeace]

Religious scripture isn't based on multiple independent corroborating sources.

That was your point?
Strawman. irrelevant. Baseless.
Firstly... Why a strawman? The Gospels are not just religious texts.
Secondly... Why irrelevant? The OP is focused on history. Quote the Gospels are reliable from a historical point of view Unquote.
Thirdly... Why baseless? It has no basis. It's not a truth claim. It has no support in investigative study.

Tacitus is considered by modern scholars to be one of the greatest Roman historians.

The Annals is among the first-known secular-historic records to mention Jesus which Tacitus does in connection with Nero's persecution of the Christians. The passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Bible's New Testament gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome. While a majority of scholars consider the passage authentic, some dispute it.

The Historical Jesus is based on historical evidence. Every time a new scroll is unearthed or new Gospel fragment is found, the Historical Jesus is modified. And because so much has been lost, we can never know him completely.
The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by few biblical scholars and historians...
Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians. The New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a 'thoroughly dead thesis'.

...essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence.

The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds.

Once again, you are wrong. Sigh. Don't you tire of just saying whatever?

I have no clue how you understood that from what I said.
What part of that quote makes you think that I believe peer review doesn't exist in the historical or archeological sciences?

Good. Then we're even. You might want to use your words with your previous response.

Religious scripture isn't subject to peer review.
It is instead just believed.

Your strawman is blowing in the wind. I suggest you just let it go, and stop trying to prop it up. It's hopelessly useless in this thread... in fact, any thread.

Spouting what? facts? sure.

Even the apostle Paul thought that a waste of time - making absolutely no sense.
(1 Corinthians 9:26) . . .the way I am running is not aimlessly; the way I am aiming my blows is so as not to be striking the air;
What's the use of spouting facts that are irrelevant, and has no bearing on anything being discussed? Sigh.
Is that not the same as speaking into the air... What's the sense in that?

Not sure what you mean.
You being a creationist tells us all we need to know about your grasp of how science is done.

Wow. Being a creationist makes one unable to grasp how science is done. There goes 75% of the science community. Spouting facts?

Yes.

Why? Did it magically turn into something else then religious scripture since last time I read it?

What's your point?

The bible, just like the quran or the bagavad ghita, is religious scripture. There's no way around that.

No clue why you insist on contesting that.

Building that strawman again...

But if the religious scientist writes religious scripture, we do say it is religious scripture.
Science papers are science papers - no matter who writes them or what their personal beliefs are.

Just like religious scripture is religious scripture - no matter who writes it.

...and history is history, no matter who writes them. Thank you. Oh dear.

Groan.

The fault is all yours. I never said anything like what you are insinuating. You're arguing a gigantic strawman.
At no point did I say the bible is religious scripture "because it was written by religious people", as if everything a religious person writes down makes it religious scripture.

That's just your very very bizarre interpretation of what I actually said.

Me calling the gospels (and by extension the bible) religious scripture is based entirely on WHAT IT SAYS, not on who wrote it.

In fact................................... we don't even know who wrote it.

Then it's a strawman. Irrelevant to the topic... and useless. Why do you think it's worth mentioning in a topic discussing history. and what is written as history?
How can that be my fault?

No. It's mostly fictional.
Genesis, exodus, babel, the flood... none of this ever occurred. Demonstrably false.

Spouting opinions now.

The gospels are "accurate history" in the exact same way as Marvel stories are "accurate history".
The only difference is that Marvel stories are universally recognized as fictional, while certain people insist on the gospels being completely true.

More opinions? Wow.

Why would I change a correct understanding on the difference between a science paper and religious scripture?

I am not asking you to change anything. I think it is appropriate you admit that the difference between a science paper and religious scripture, is not being discussed here, and hope you would get in line with the topic. Or are you here to talk about science papers and religious texts? Then I am not interested. Why mention it.

 

[halbhh]

That is not a valid excuse because God had to know that many of his laws would not be followed. You are merely grasping at straws at this point. When events occur in the same way that they would have without any God at all you bring your version of God under extreme doubt.

lol...no friend, I'm not really grasping at straws at all. I understand some of the consequences of "free will". It's were in a situation of genuine freedom, some people will do evil and then influence others to follow, and soon it gathers momentum, and becomes established. It happens over and over in history.

(Speaking more broadly yet, evil is typical in human history: The Khmer Rouge and the National Socialist Worker's Party (Germany 1920s,30s) are not unusual. Atrocities are not unusual in history. Slavery is not unusual (and continues today also) These are all only typical in history.)