How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?

[firedragon]

True, Monster. But the human avataras of Lord Vishnu go through all the emotions and situations of humans, birth, education, sorrow, happiness. Only that they go back to their ''loka'', Vaikuntha, riding their mount, Garuda. Sage Vishwamitra taught Lord Parusharama (Lord Parashurama did not return, he is still around in India), Sage Vasishtha taught Lord Rama and Sage Sandipani taught Lord Krishna.

Is the lord vishnu in the Gospels of the NT?

 

[halbhh]

The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events which may meet one or more of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies,the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that a human Jesus existed,but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

What are your thoughts about the usefulness of the Gospels as a source of historical information and why?

I trust someone showed up to point out that the Gospel of Mark was written down about 35 years after Jesus walked the Earth? (The mainstream view, of diverse scholars)

Just in case:
"Most scholars date Mark to AD 65–75.[6]"
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

35 years later. Which means.....

....that living eye witnesses that had seen Jesus as teens or around 20 yrs old -- some were still alive, and had been telling their accounts to others for decades...

So...the obvious conclusion.

But there is one thing about memory that is very unexpected. (I read in psychology for years, etc.) Lemme find it and post it just below.

 

[halbhh]

60 Minutes (CBS news magazine)

You know how 98% of videos people post aren't that good?

Well, this is one of the 2% (or less), that's you are glad to find --

So.... 35 years: not that long for one of these people! They got this.

Ergo, Gospel of Mark: likely as not (or more likely than not) to have real events, even in the view of an agnostic.

more:
Hyperthymesia - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is the lord Vishnu in the Gospels of the NT?

This was to point that if Jesus went through birth, sorrows, I hope some pleasures too, and death; that would not be strange. Allah is all powerful. Who are we to critique what he does?

 

[1213]

...Biblical accounts of Jesus,and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

What are your thoughts about the usefulness of the Gospels as a source of historical information and why?

I believe Bible is accurate history. But, I don’t think it is very useful to know that things went as the Bible tells. The main thing in the Bible is that people would become righteous. That is more than accepting some history.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

 

[Dawnofhope]

So the magic is not a problem for you, just leave that part out of the scene and the rest is history?

That's correct. Its a heavily redacted story for the purposes of emphasizing theology. Its not hard to pare back the artistic embellishments to see its based around an actual event. John the Baptist, Herod and Jesus were real characters, not mythical or fictional. Josephus a reputable historian makes that clear. The River Jordan is part of the landscape of the region.

History tells us there was a strong sense of Messianic expectation around this time. So on the fringes of Jewish orthodoxy there was a righteous man, John baptizing those who would follow him. Jesus and His followers were also on the fringe of that culture.

Whether or not the miracles happened or the Messianic claims have validity is another matter.

 

[lukethethird]

That's correct. Its a heavily redacted story for the purposes of emphasizing theology. Its not hard to pare back the artistic embellishments to see its based around an actual event. John the Baptist, Herod and Jesus were real characters, not mythical or fictional. Josephus a reputable historian makes that clear. The River Jordan is part of the landscape of the region.

History tells us there was a strong sense of Messianic expectation around this time. So on the fringes of Jewish orthodoxy there was a righteous man, John baptizing those who would follow him. Jesus and His followers were also on the fringe of that culture.

Whether or not the miracles happened or the Messianic claims have validity is another matter.

That's incredible, just like that The Bible is a history book.

 

[Quagmire]

What probable occurrences in history can be extracted from a story about a super hero with supernatural powers?

Fast forward to the year 4020. Archeologists have just unearthed and are looking over a 2000 year old DVD called Captain America: the first Avenger.

Cross referring some if what's depicted in the movie with current knowledge of the era, they can use this movie as further confirmation that there really was a "world war" at about that time; that people really did travel around in cars, trains, and airplanes during this period; they can get a better understanding of the symbology, cultural norms, fashion, language, music, etc. of this point in human history, . . .

. . .and all without even having to entertain any notions about there ever having been such a thing as a man-made super soldier with really awful fashion sense.

 

[lukethethird]

Fast forward to the year 4020. Archeologists have just unearthed and are looking over a 2000 year old DVD called Captain America: the first Avenger.

Cross referring some if what's depicted in the movie with current knowledge of the era, they can use this movie as further confirmation that there really was a "world war" at about that time; that people really did travel around in cars, trains, and airplanes during this period; they can get a better understanding of the symbology, cultural norms, fashion, language, music, etc. of this point in human history, . . .

. . .and all without even having to entertain any notions about there ever having been such a thing as a man-made super soldier with really awful fashion sense.

Yes, every story has it's setting and the big story is no different.

 

[firedragon]

I trust someone showed up to point out that the Gospel of Mark was written down about 35 years after Jesus walked the Earth? (The mainstream view, of diverse scholars)

Just in case:
"Most scholars date Mark to AD 65–75.[6]"
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

35 years later. Which means.....

....that living eye witnesses that had seen Jesus as teens or around 20 yrs old -- some were still alive, and had been telling their accounts to others for decades...

So...the obvious conclusion.

But there is one thing about memory that is very unexpected. (I read in psychology for years, etc.) Lemme find it and post it just below.

A lot of people use the same logic to the author of John as well.

The problem with your thesis is that you have made an assumption, not an analysis. What you have stated as certainty is a possibility and there are endless possibilities which people could state based on their presuppositions. Your comment is a "suggestion" which if you quantify with evidence is a great analysis.

Cheers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I trust someone showed up to point out that the Gospel of Mark was written down about 35 years after Jesus walked the Earth? (The mainstream view, of diverse scholars)

Just in case:
"Most scholars date Mark to AD 65–75.[6]"
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

35 years later. Which means.....

....that living eye witnesses that had seen Jesus as teens or around 20 yrs old -- some were still alive, and had been telling their accounts to others for decades...

So...the obvious conclusion.

But there is one thing about memory that is very unexpected. (I read in psychology for years, etc.) Lemme find it and post it just below.

Its an important point that regardless of whether or not the author was a first hand eye witness or more likely recorded what he heard from oral traditions, it was first recorded within a time when some of those who met Jesus would have still been alive. However it is an unlikely assumption the author recorded verbatim historical events. Mark was most likely written to meet the needs of the church at the time with the purpose of developing primarily a theological understanding of Christ as opposed to a purely historic account.

 

[firedragon]

Its an important point that regardless of whether or not the author was a first hand eye witness or more likely recorded what he heard from oral traditions, it was first recorded within a time when some of those who met Jesus would have still been alive. However it is an unlikely assumption the author recorded verbatim historical events. Mark was most likely written to meet the needs of the church at the time with the purpose of developing primarily a theological understanding of Christ as opposed to a purely historic account.

So what you are in other words saying is that the Gospel of Mark was written with a theological agenda?

 

[Dawnofhope]

So what you are in other words saying is that the Gospel of Mark was written with a theological agenda?

The Gospel of Mark communicates through the stories told important themes such as the nature of Christ Himself (for example with reference to His being the Son of God), His Messianic claims along with Him being an eschatological deliver.

 

[firedragon]

The Gospel of Mark communicates through the stories told important themes such as the nature of Christ Himself (for example with reference to His being the Son of God), His Messianic claims along with Him being an eschatological deliver.

You said brother that Mark was written "to meet the needs of the church at the time with the purpose of developing primarily a theological understanding of Christ".

That means its written with an agenda! Not right or correct?

 

[Dawnofhope]

You said brother that Mark was written "to meet the needs of the church at the time with the purpose of developing primarily a theological understanding of Christ".

That means its written with an agenda! Not right or correct?

Correct.

 

[halbhh]

A lot of people use the same logic to the author of John as well.

The problem with your thesis is that you have made an assumption, not an analysis. What you have stated as certainty is a possibility and there are endless possibilities which people could state based on their presuppositions. Your comment is a "suggestion" which if you quantify with evidence is a great analysis.

Cheers.

You'll have to reconsider who jumped to a conclusion here. I didn't reach any firm conclusion based on Mark being written during a time frame such that is is likely mathematically likely (in practical terms, most would think of the odds as a sure thing) that some eye witnesses were still alive.

But did you jump to a conclusion about my thoughts? ;-)

But it is fun to point out that statistical likelihood (which I've done more than once) knowing that many people have heard a popular misconception that the gospels were all written after witnesses had all passed on (actually reaching a firm conclusion, commonly). Heh heh.

I enjoy using math to help people see new perspectives, see.

But, changing the subject entirely, are you interested in how I actually know whether things in the gospels are worthwhile to learn?

 

[firedragon]

You'll have to reconsider who jumped to a conclusion here. I didn't reach any firm conclusion based on Mark being written during a time frame such that is is likely mathematically likely that eye witnesses were still alive.

But did you jump to a conclusion about my thoughts? ;-)

But it is fun to point out that statistical likelihood (which I've done more than once) knowing that many people have heard a popular misconception that the gospels were certainly all written after witnesses had all passed on. Heh heh.

I enjoy using math to help people see new perspectives, see.

But, changing the subject entirely, are you interested in how I actually know whether things in the gospels are worthwhile to learn?

Statistical likelihood? On a book you are assuming was based on inherited oral tradition? Maybe you have heard all the gospels were written after witnesses passed on, but you didn't hear that from me. So that's irrelevant.

You are assuming that the Gospel of Mark lets say is written based on oral tradition passed on by direct witnesses. Thats an assumption. If you say "Its possible", that's not assumption, but you state a definite statement, which is assumption.

 

[halbhh]

Statistical likelihood? On a book you are assuming was based on inherited oral tradition? Maybe you have heard all the gospels were written after witnesses passed on, but you didn't hear that from me. So that's irrelevant.

You are assuming that the Gospel of Mark lets say is written based on oral tradition passed on by direct witnesses. Thats an assumption. If you say "Its possible", that's not assumption, but you state a definite statement, which is assumption.

You'd best ask me what I think instead of informing me what I think, as it is less common than you are guessing.

Here's what is so interesting though -- If anyone believed Mark was written down after all witnesses were dead, that person would have have a belief without proof...

And even worse, really, a belief not in something reasonably plausible even...but actually a belief in something that is rather unlikely.

heh heh. I do admit, I find it quite fun to point that out.

But I'm that way. I find equal delight in correcting popular misconceptions about astrophysics stuff, and well...honestly, just about any popular misconception. It's really fun to shoot down false ideas.

Don't you agree, generally?

 

[firedragon]

Here's what is so interesting though -- If anyone believed Mark was written down after all witnesses were dead, that person would have have a belief without proof...

Again, that's not relevant to me mate. Its a straw man.

Hope you understand.

 

[halbhh]

Again, that's not relevant to me mate. Its a straw man.

Hope you understand.

A math information point many don't know isn't a straw man, and I didn't ascribe to you any thoughts.... You needn't have responded to a post pointing out something old to you. We can see you ascribed points of view/ideas to me. Now.... this is interesting -- who was the one making a straw man?.... heh heh (you've merely done what everyone does at times -- ascribe to someone else what oneself is actually the one doing; I've done it plenty, but not today I think, lol)