• 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Are the gospels reliable historical documents?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
I don't "know" they aren't. I don't "know" just about anything. But in terms of probability, the point is that they are absurdly unrealistic and implausible as history. Again, if you read equivalent events in any sacred text of any other tradition, you'd write them off as obvious myth. Not history.
How about: Jesus did stuff that was interpreted by some people as miracles and/or exorcisms?...........what’s so improbable about that?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
How about: Jesus did stuff that was interpreted by some people as miracles and/or exorcisms?...........what’s so improbable about that?

That's more plausible, except the text doesn't say that. It says the miracles actually occurred, matter-of-factly. So again, that's a giant red flag that in the Gospels we're not reading plausible history. We're reading myth.

Not to mention the wildly exagerrated claims that "all of Jerusalem" came to see him and he was so popular and people fanatically thronged to him in such numbers he couldn't even go into any of the cities in the whole region. We have no independent corroboration of any of that. It's not history. It's myth.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
That's more plausible, except the text doesn't say that. It says the miracles actually occurred, matter-of-factly. So again, that's a giant red flag that in the Gospels we're not reading plausible history. We're reading myth.
It’s a historical fact that Jesus did Stuff that was interpreted as Miracles……..agree?....if not what alternative do you suggest?........... Did the authors of the gospels simply invent those claims?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It’s a historical fact that Jesus did Stuff that was interpreted as Miracles……..agree?....if not what alternative do you suggest?........... Did the authors of the gospels simply invent those claims?
Nope, those appear to be only myths in the Bible. You need more than just the Bible to claim that something is historical fact.

At best you can say that it is a historical fact that there was a man named Jesus that appeared to have a following and he was believed to have been crucified. That he did "miracles" is not supported by history at all.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It’s a historical fact that Jesus did Stuff that was interpreted as Miracles……..agree?....if not what alternative do you suggest?........... Did the authors of the gospels simply invent those claims?

Personally I'm not convinced that any of the "stuff" in the Gospels about Jesus is accurate, as, again, it's plainly myth that is wildly implausible as history.

If Jesus "did stuff" that people interpreted as myth, and a contemporary document said that, that would be interesting. But that's irrelevant to the Gospels, which aren't contemporary and report the miracles as matter-of-fact events that actually occurred. This is the stuff of myth. Not history.

Think of it this way. If I reported to you that my friend was walking down the street, and all of sudden the ground opened up beneath him and a reincarnated Buddha emerged from the depths, which "his whole city" saw, and informed him he needed to reform his ways and become Buddhist - would you believe that story? Would you find that person a credible historian? Or would you say that despite that fact that "some stuff" may have happened to him, my friend's account is likely not accurate?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Nope, those appear to be only myths in the Bible. You need more than just the Bible to claim that something is historical fact.

At best you can say that it is a historical fact that there was a man named Jesus that appeared to have a following and he was believed to have been crucified. That he did "miracles" is not supported by history at all.

You need more than just the Bible
why? why isent the bible good enough for you?

What other alternative do you suggest? Who invented the miracles claims? The apostoles? Paul? The authors of the Gosples? The Evil catholic church?


Just kidding, I am not expecting a direct answer from you
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
Personally I'm not convinced that any of the "stuff" in the Gospels about Jesus is accurate, as, again, it's plainly myth that is wildly implausible as history.

If Jesus "did stuff" that people interpreted as myth, and a contemporary document said that, that would be interesting. But that's irrelevant to the Gospels, which aren't contemporary and report the miracles as matter-of-fact events that actually occurred. This is the stuff of myth. Not history.

Well how do you know it´s myth?


There are some possibilities that come to mind

1 Jesus did stuff that others interpreted as miracles

2 The disciples invented the miracle claims, and the authors of the gospels repeated that lie.

3 The authors of the gospels invented the miracles.

4 something else

Which do you think is the most probable?


Think of it this way. If I reported to you that my friend was walking down the street, and all of sudden the ground opened up beneath him and a reincarnated Buddha emerged from the depths, which "his whole city" saw, and informed him he needed to reform his ways and become Buddhist - would you believe that story? Would you find that person a credible historian? Or would you say that despite that fact that "some stuff" may have happened to him, my friend's account is likely not accurate?
Well if you write a biography of your friend, and nearly all the verifiable details have been verified and proven to be correct, then I would accept the totality of the biography as a reliable source.

I would interpret the Buddha story as an event that your fried thought was true. (specially if your friend becomes a Buddhist and gives all his money to charity as a consequence of such an event)

Why wouldn’t you join the majority of scholars and say: the apostles (and others) saw something that they interpreted as the risen Jesus?........it seems to me that you are just being skeptic for the sake of being skeptic.


Atheistic New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann concludes,
"It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ
Gary R. Habermas Quotes (Author of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus)

so under what basis woudl you say that a scholar like Gerd Ludemann is wrong?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Well how do you know it´s myth?

Because it's written just like any other myth. It's filled, as I already explained in my first post outlining chapter 1 of Mark, with wildly improbable alleged events and totally unrealistic exagerrations, like grown men instantly dropping their entire lives to go follow around a stranger who has barely said a word to them, or an "entire city" following Jesus around so he can magically, instantly cure all their diseases.

Step back a minute. If you read that story in any other context - of some Hindu figure, or Native American figure, or Chinese figure - would you just be like, "Oh yeah, that sounds plausible?"

No. You wouldn't. It doesn't remotely describe how things actually work in the real world. It describes a fantasy. A myth.

There are some possibilities that come to mind

1 Jesus did stuff that others interpreted as miracles

2 The disciples invented the miracle claims, and the authors of the gospels repeated that lie.

3 The authors of the gospels invented the miracles.

4 something else

Which do you think is the most probable?

It could be any of the above, or a combination of the above.

Well if you write a biography of your friend, and nearly all the verifiable details have been verified and proven to be correct, then I would accept the totality of the biography as a reliable source.

Oh give me a break. :rolleyes:

No, you would not. The fact that I can tell you lots of accurate things about my friend's life: I can give you his address, tell you where he grew up, where he went to school - I can give you vastly more detail about my friend than the Gospels give about Jesus - you would still not believe my Buddha earthquake story. And you'd be inclined to not consider me a reliable source when I tell you other things about my friend, particularly if I continue telling other wildly spun stories about him flying or chatting with dead people or teleporting or magically curing diseases. Which are all the details which, if true, are the ones anyone would actually care about and would distinguish my friend from any other average Joe.

In short, the fact that the Gospels mention some real places, like Jerusalem, and some real people, like Herod or Caesar, does not remotely tell us whether any of the unique events recorded in the Gospels are believable. Particularly when they are so obviously fantastical.

I would interpret the Buddha story as an event that your fried thought was true. (specially if your friend becomes a Buddhist and gives all his money to charity as a consequence of such an event)

Why wouldn’t you join the majority of scholars and say: the apostles (and others) saw something that they interpreted as the risen Jesus?........it seems to me that you are just being skeptic for the sake of being skeptic.

I have little doubt that some of the apostles "saw something that they interpreted as the risen Jesus." What does that have to do with whether the Gospels are historically accurate? People have visions of things all the time. In every culture. In every religion. People on RF report their religious and mystical experiences all the time.

That tells us nothing about whether those people accurately relay what actually happened to them.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
why? why isent the bible good enough for you?

What other alternative do you suggest? Who invented the miracles claims? The apostoles? Paul? The authors of the Gosples? The Evil catholic church?


Just kidding, I am not expecting a direct answer from you
Of course not, the Bible is the claim, it is not the evidence.

And it is rather sad how you are still projecting. You know why you lost the right to demand a "direct answer". Change your behavior and the quality of answers that you receive from me and others will change.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I have little doubt that some of the apostles "saw something that they interpreted as the risen Jesus." What does that have to do with whether the Gospels are historically accurate? People have visions of things all the time. In every culture. In every religion. People on RF report their religious and mystical experiences all the time.

That tells us nothing about whether those people accurately relay what actually happened to them.
My point is that we can establish as fact that the apostles (and others) saw stuff that they interpreted as miracles.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
My point is that we can establish as fact that the apostles (and others) saw stuff that they interpreted as miracles.

People "seeing stuff" that they interpret as miraculous is neither really in question, nor does it establish the Gospels as reliable historical records. People "see stuff" in cultures and religions all around the world, all the time. That people "see stuff" which no one else can verify tells us zilch about whether or not any of those people actually saw what they purport to have seen.

It's further notable that when it comes to the Apostles, we have firsthand testimony from only one of them - Paul, who converted to Christianity not because of anything he saw Jesus do on Earth, but because he had a vision of Jesus in heaven that no one else could verify. And he notably omits virtually all if the biographical content of Jesus' life in the Gospels: no miracle birth story, no 12 disciples, no wandering around the countryside with thousands of fanatical followers magically healing all their diseases, no family - zip.

That all should be a giant red flag to you that what we read in the Gospels is not trustworthy.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
People "seeing stuff" that they interpret as miraculous is neither really in question, nor does it establish the Gospels as reliable historical records. People "see stuff" in cultures and religions all around the world, all the time. That people "see stuff" which no one else can verify tells us zilch about whether or not any of those people actually saw what they purport to have seen.

It's further notable that when it comes to the Apostles, we have firsthand testimony from only one of them - Paul, who converted to Christianity not because of anything he saw Jesus do on Earth, but because he had a vision of Jesus in heaven that no one else could verify. And he notably omits virtually all if the biographical content of Jesus' life in the Gospels: no miracle birth story, no 12 disciples, no wandering around the countryside with thousands of fanatical followers magically healing all their diseases, no family - zip.

That all should be a giant red flag to you that what we read in the Gospels is not trustworthy.
Given the fact that nearly all the verifiable information has been verified and corroborated, why not giving the gospels the benefit of the doubt and accept as fact that Jesus had 12 disciples?
no 12 disciples
My point is that if we remove the miracles, the poetry, the allegories and the theological motives………..we end up having an accurate representation of Jesus life.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Given the fact that nearly all the verifiable information has been verified and corroborated,

But it hasnt. You keep saying this. It hasn't been demonstrated.

Again, that the Gospels mention some real people and real places does not at all tell us that the actual events purported in the Gospels occurred, any more than me setting the Buddha earthquake story in a real place and real time and involving a real person tells us whether that story is at all plausible.

why not giving the gospels the benefit of the doubt and accept as fact that Jesus had 12 disciples?

1) Because they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. 2) The number 12 has symbolic significance in Judaism.

My point is that if we remove the miracles, the poetry, the allegories and the theological motives………..we end up having an accurate representation of Jesus life.

If you get rid of all that...you've got next to nothing left of the Gospels.

If next to nothing in a document is historically reliable...is the document, generally speaking, reliable?

No.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
But it hasnt. You keep saying this. It hasn't been demonstrated.

Again, that the Gospels mention some real people and real places does not at all tell us that the actual events purported in the Gospels occurred, any more than me setting the Buddha earthquake story in a real place and real time and involving a real person tells us whether that story is at all plausible.


Granted The accuracy of these events and places don’t tell us that the gospels are necessarily historical buy they tell us that the authors of the gospels had access to good sources of information, 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.




1) Because they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

why not ?
2) The number 12 has symbolic significance in Judaism.

So what? Jesus was a Jew, why wouldn’t he use the “number 12” ?..........


If you get rid of all that...you've got next to nothing left of the Gospels.

If next to nothing in a document is historically reliable...is the document, generally speaking, reliable?

No.

No if you remove all that, you end up with a Jew, that had many followers and disciples, who claimed to be divine, was baptized, who had brothers and sisters, who traveled trough differents towns in Palestine, who did stuff that people interpreted as miracles, who had some problems with the Jewish Sanhedrin, was crucified, buried, whose tomb was found empty, etc.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Granted The accuracy of these events and places don’t tell us that the gospels are necessarily historical buy they tell us that the authors of the gospels had access to good sources of information,

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.

Again, bookstores all over the world are filled with novels that contain stories with accurate geographical, cultural, historical, even biographical information in them. That does not at all tell us that the stories they contain are actually true.

therefore they were in a position to know about Jesus and his life.

That isn't a given at all either. We have no clue who they were or what their specific sources of information about Jesus were, even if they had access to generally accurate information tbat a city exists named Jerusalem and so on.

So unless you what to affirm that they were intentionally lying, we should trust them as good reliable sources.

Faulty reasoning from start to finish there.

why not ?

....how many times must I explain it? Because they are filled on every page with completely fantastical stories that is the stuff of myth. Because they are clear literary constructions. Because they have a clear apologetic function. Need I go on?

So what? Jesus was a Jew, why wouldn’t he use the “number 12” ?..........

In the Gospel of Mark, the number 12 appears more than once. Not only does Jesus have 12 Apostles, he also magically heals a 12 year old girl on her deathbed, on the way to which he magically heals a woman who has had some bleeding condition for 12 years, and there are 12 baskets of bread leftover after he magically multiplies food to feed the 5,000.

So this is an indication that the number 12 has a literary (and theological) function for the Gospel writer. Again, this is not history.


No if you remove all that, you end up with a Jew, that had many followers and disciples,

No, we went over that. That he was a celebrity with thousands of fanatical devotees who wandered around the countryside with him is wildly implausible. So nix that.

who claimed to be divine,

How is that aim no theologically motivated?

Nix that.
was baptized,

No, we went over that. His baptism is an absurdly theatrical supernatural event. Nix that.

who had brothers and sisters,

Not attested to by Paul, but okay...

who traveled trough differents towns in Palestine,

Even Jesus' travel in Mark is a literary construction. I can explain in further detail later.

who did stuff that people interpreted as miracles,

We're eliminating supernaturalism. So nix that.

who had some problems with the Jewish Sanhedrin,

Obviously a theological motivation there. The whole point of Christianity, theologically, is a rebellion against mainstream Judaism. So nix that.

was crucified, buried, whose tomb was found empty, etc.

Again, thoroughly myth-laden and theologically motivated telling of events there. So nix that.


So in the end we've got...a Jew existed. Who maybe had siblings.

....mkay. :shrug:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
care to explain the difference between claim and evidnece?
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.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Then it becomes inexplicable why is it that you are unable to quote any of my claims + the supposed refutation.
Many of your claims are unsupported, so need no refutation. Others have been refuted, but you fail to see it.
So what? Should we drop all Josephus work just because he didn’t witness any of the events that he reports in his documents?............it is another case where this rule* only applies with statements that contradict you personally don’t like.,
We should drop those that are reports of what others claim. "The Christians say..." is not evidence.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That's how some people think... I've met people who actually reject searching for patterns or likelihoods on their own, and require already-established evidence for *anything* before offering any sort of consideration.

...But finding patterns and connecting the dots is the fundamental building block of human abstract thinking. Without it, our thinking would resemble something more like how goats or sheep think.
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.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
See @Valjean I can quote a specific claim that I disagree with


and then I will provide the reasons for why I disagree. (why cant you do the same with my claims?)


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.

mark 6:3

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


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?

3 Josephus also mentions “James the brother of Jesus”

you see @Valjean
I am providing the exact reason for why I disagree with “ @joelr “ that way he can defend his position against these specific arguments. Why can’t you do the same with my claims? Why wouldn’t you quote a specific claim and explain why you disagree? this is the way reasonable conversations are suppose to be.
First, establish your premises.
You're still working from unsupported premises, as did the ancients you cite. Mythology can be internally consistent when based on mythological premises, but 'facts' derived from unsupported premises are, themselves, unsupported.
First establish the basics, then work from them.
 
Top