1. 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!

Featured Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by leroy, Jan 28, 2021.

  1. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,774
    Ratings:
    +314
    Religion:
    christian
    Fulfilled Prophecies are too good to be true, historians know this , which is why we most be skeptical about those particular events……….. but so what?

    It is still a historical fact that:

    1 Jesus Existed

    2 Did stuff that some interpreted as miracles

    3 Was crucified and buried

    4 He claimed to be divine , he claimed to have a special relationship with God

    5 He had disciples

    6 traveled around various towns in Palestine

    7 was baptized by John the Baptist.

    8 had brothers


    Etc.
     
  2. SeekingAllTruth

    SeekingAllTruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2020
    Messages:
    1,208
    Ratings:
    +620
    Religion:
    agnostic deist
    Well, we're back to this: please cite sources outside the Bible of people who saw Jesus do miracles, maybe even ascended into heaven, but preferably who saw zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem. I'll believe in Jesus if you can do that.
     
  3. SeekingAllTruth

    SeekingAllTruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2020
    Messages:
    1,208
    Ratings:
    +620
    Religion:
    agnostic deist
    How can you agree they are fictional?
     
  4. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,774
    Ratings:
    +314
    Religion:
    christian
    You arbitrarily decided that only sources outside the bible are “good enough”
     
  5. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,774
    Ratings:
    +314
    Religion:
    christian
    If any of points 1 or 2 form the OP is wrong, I would be convince that it is fiction.
     
  6. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    26,251
    Ratings:
    +13,017
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Are you not reading the posts?
     
  7. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,938
    Ratings:
    +4,773
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Given an historical Jesus, it's not impossible. But it's not indicated by the texts. In John the narrative frame is still Mark, the magical stories are plainly as unhistorical as ever, and so on.
     
  8. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    26,251
    Ratings:
    +13,017
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    There is no EVIDENCE that the Gospels are truth. There is no third party corroboration, and the stories, like fairy tales, are fantastical; they would not be believed if someone reported them today.
    These are the same reasons we don't believe the fantastical tales of Erewhon, The Illiad or C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy.

    Moreover, linguistic, archaeological, historical and textual analysis have convinced experts in these fields that much of these works is fabricated, edited, or miscopied, and that many of the authors/compilers had agendas.

    You keep asking for evidence of this. It's been given you, but you've been quibbling, whilst ignoring the most salient points.
    You're perfectly capable of researching these yourself, now they've been pointed out to you. You have access to a computer and, presumably, a library.

    Presumably, as a Christian, the veracity of the Gospels is important to you, since you believe the future of your eternal soul is in jeopardy if you stray from the correct path. As a Christian, this is the very purpose of your existence.
    Don't say you can't be bothered. I should think salvation from a lake of fire would be more than enough motivation to thoroughly investigate the doctrine on which you're staking everything.
     
  9. SeekingAllTruth

    SeekingAllTruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2020
    Messages:
    1,208
    Ratings:
    +620
    Religion:
    agnostic deist
    Silly me! I just noticed that YOU are the OP. Now it all makes sense.

    I don't believe the writers had reliable sources. They had no eyewitnesses and they certainly didn't have any written records from which to draw, given that the gospels were written up to a 100 years after the facts.
     
  10. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,774
    Ratings:
    +314
    Religion:
    christian
    .

    Yes, as has been justified in the OP, the evidence is

    1 The authors intended to report what actually happened (they didn’t had the intention of lying)

    2 the authors had access to reliable information about Jesus and his life



    A very large portion of the data in each of the gospels can be corroborated by other independent sources. Why wouldn’t you give the authors the benefit of the doubt on those details that can’t be corroborated?

    For example:

    - according to the bible Jesus had a brother named james

    - we can verify that claim with other sources (Paul Josephus etc)

    - The gsoples also mention other brothers names Joseph Judas and Simon

    - We cant very the existance of these 3 brothers in other sources.

    BUT.....Why woulnt you give the Gosples the benefit of the doubt? if they got 1 brother correct why woudlnt they have the 3 brothers correct too?


    If you have a problem with “miracles” then we can agree on the fact that Jesus did stuff that was interpreted as miracles by some people (nothing supernatural nor extraordinary there)



    if you provide evidence that:
    1 The authors of these tales intended to report what actually happened (they didn’t had the intention of lying)

    2 the authors had access to reliable information

    then yes I woudl accept them valid historical sources.


    Except for a few spelling mistakes and a few minor irrelevant details there is no mayor “editing nor fabrication” in any of the gospels. Feel free to show that the opposite is true.




    Would you give a specific example of “evidence” against the historicity of the gospels that I haven’t answered successfully?
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,989
    Ratings:
    +23,593
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Nope, as usual your OP failed and there have been pages of people explaining your failure to you. At this point if you want a link to your failures I will simply link this thread:

    Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES
     
  12. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,774
    Ratings:
    +314
    Religion:
    christian
    100 years? most scholars would say between 40 and 70 years.............

    There where eyewitness still alive when the gospels where written, the witness where there to ether corroborate the data, or expose the lies.

    But even more important, most of the historical, geographical, demographic, archeological etc. data that is verifiable has been verified and it happens to be correct…. Only someone with access to reliable information would know all this stuff. Why not trusting these authors with the data that can’t be verified.

    If the gospels claimed that Jesus had a brother named James, and we can verify that and confirm that it is true, why not trusting the gosples when they say that he had other brothers (Joseph Simon and Judas)?
     
  13. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,774
    Ratings:
    +314
    Religion:
    christian
    BUT you won’t quote a specific failure right? As always your accusations are vague and unsupported.
     
  14. SeekingAllTruth

    SeekingAllTruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2020
    Messages:
    1,208
    Ratings:
    +620
    Religion:
    agnostic deist
    Because there's no outside sources unsullied by church influence to corroborate these accounts.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,774
    Ratings:
    +314
    Religion:
    christian
    Well Jesus had a brother named James ….agree? we can corroborate this in both biblical and non biblical sources (Josephus for example)

    So at least some claims can be verified…..agree?
     
  16. SeekingAllTruth

    SeekingAllTruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2020
    Messages:
    1,208
    Ratings:
    +620
    Religion:
    agnostic deist
    The Josephus reference to James seems to be authentic but that's a sliver to hang the authenticity of all 4 gospels on. I can't do it, leroy. Sorry.
     
  17. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    26,251
    Ratings:
    +13,017
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    But these premises have been debunked. As I said, you're ignoring others' explanatory posts.
    These aren't first person sources, nor have they been corroborated by disinterested third parties. Their claims are, at best, hearsay -- as has been explained to you.

    What does this have to do with the reliability of the Gospels? You're presuming they got one brother right. You're presuming they got Jesus right. The source itself is questionable, why would genealogical conclusions based on it be less so?
    Interpretations based on apocryphal sources are, themselves, apocryphal.
    No, we can't. We can't assume anything. You haven't been reading the posts. You're still accepting the Jesus folklore as axiomatic. Any conclusions drawn from questionable premises are, themselves, questionable.
    We know nothing for sure of who Jesus was or what he/they did. It's folklore all the way down.
    And these premises have been debunked. Read the posts!
    We're questioning your premises. Why do you keep assuming we'd accept any conclusions based on them, however logical?
    Defend your premises first, then propose corollaries.
    It's been shown you. Sources have been cited. You choose to ignore them.
    PLEASE -- stop it. Stop pretending you haven't been given the evidence. READ THE PREVIOUS POSTS!
     
    #357 Valjean, Feb 3, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2021
  18. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    26,251
    Ratings:
    +13,017
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Josephus was a reporter, not a witness. He reported what he heard being discussed on the streets.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,989
    Ratings:
    +23,593
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No, because you will simply deny it when it is explained to you. And it is a false claim to say that my refutations are always unsupported. I refuted you plenty of times with resources. But of course you broke the rules of polite discourse.


    When you start to own up to errors then you your demands for refutation will have some teeth in them. But when you ignore all corrections you make that argument toothless.
     
  20. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    39,989
    Ratings:
    +23,593
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Tacitus too. He reported that there were people that believed in Jesus. He did not support the existence of Jesus by saying that he saw him or that other non-believers saw him. The only support for the Jesus stories ultimately come from Christians themselves.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...