Are the Gospels Historicaly Reliable?

[Arctonyx]

My archaeological argument revolves around the premise that much of the Gospels are confirmed by archeology, and that there is no definative archaeological evidence against any part of the Gospels.

That's just another way of saying "This passage of a Gospel is true, therefore the rest of them are". If the archaeological argument is valid then it lends just as much credence to any other religious text that happens to get some place names right.

What obviously false claims of the Gospels (not Bible, as we are not discussing any other books besides the Gospels)? Greek mythology in my view seems to be very epic and exciting. The Iliad is based around many parts of the Trojan War, from the king to the great soldier Achilles, and seems to be full of much wild and epic material. Having not read it, it seems unlikely to me that it is really similar to accurate, first-hand accounts.

Well I'd say the Gospels most prominently get prophecy wrong, and on a couple of occasions predict events that never come to pass (which means that by OT standards Jesus would be a false prophet and should have been put to death). So what to you doesn't seem epic about the bible? A virgin birth, visiting kings, kings that wipe out entire generations to kill Jesus, walking on water, healing the sick, love, transubstantiation, betrayal, resurrection, ascension. In many ways the biblical story is much more 'epic' and 'exciting' then much of Greek mythology. And quite a few are written as first hand accounts, not just by people claiming to be basing their story on those claiming to be eye-witnesses. Greek mythology in biblical terms would be Jesus personally writing the bible.

When I refer to the "explosion in Christianity," I am not talking about the expansion of it into Europe, I'm talking about the explosion of Christianity in Galilee and Judea and the areas imediate to where Jesus preached. There must be some reason as to why Christianity became so popular in these areas, so quickly. As early as 64 A.D., Christians were already being blamed and prosecuted for the Great Fire of Rome. I know very little about the history of Islam, but I will say this: If you are a Christian, you do not have to automaticly believe that all other religions are completely wrong. It is perfectly OK to think that Muhammad was used by God to reach out to people in that area. I personaly am undecided on this issue, but I know that there is some conflict in theological circles.

As religions go that isn't popular, and if you are arguing that the fast spread of a religion gives it credence then there are hundreds if not thousands of religions more credible then Christianity. And why wouldn't you think they were wrong? If your version was correct wouldn't God reach out to people with your book only? And not bother with the falsehoods likely to be spread by others? And if you believe in Islam why not Thor, Horus, or any number of the thousands of other Gods?

I think that the separate sources that we have are reasonable. Again, we have the problem of eye-witnesses to Jesus, who were willing to die for Christianity.

Evidence? There isn't any that I know of, and look back in history and you'll find a surprising number of cases of people willing to martyr themselves for a lie, even if that lie was committed in plain sight. I'm really not sure why this argument is used so often, a cursory glance at history shows it to be fallacious.

As for no part of the Gospels being backed up by seperate sources, I disagree. Sure there are no separate sources (that I know of) that back the claims of mirricles in the Gospels (I believe they are acurate 1. because the Gospels seem to be acurate first hand accounts, and 2. because the increadible rise in Christianity could not have been explained otherwise), but they back many other things, such as the existance of disciples of Jesus. If you can present to me "mountains of evidence" that the Gospels must be wrong, then yes, I would be willing to change my beliefs.

The problem here is that you are transferring the burden of proof. If you claim the Gospels are accurate you should be able to easily provide a mountain of evidence that shows they are accurate. As it is, you have 1, 2000 year old book with historical writings only taking place decades after the events happened. Don't you think resurrections would feature quite highly on a historians list of things to write about? People don't often rise from the dead. And you keep saying that they 'seem to be accurate first hand accounts', but again you have no evidence of this, the Gospels themselves admit to only being based on people claiming to be eye witnesses and you'll dismiss religious texts of others that actually claim to be based on first-hand accounts. So why does them seeming to be such lend them any credence? And again if the uptake of a religion is evidence of its veracity then many other religions benefit more from this argument.

Well, It would be nice to do a compairison between the Gospels and a made up account that we both agree is almost certainly false.

Btw guys, I understand that for some of the arguments, there will be a few myths that fit the criteria. Imagine that we are trying to decide if a perticular animal is a bird. We ask questions like "does it have wings?", and "does it have a beak or bill?" Well, bats have wings, but are not birds. Platypuses have bills, but are not birds. However, if the animal meets all of the criteria, then it is almost certainly a bird.

How about any number of other deities? The thousands of others that have similar supernatural acts attributed to them, and have a similar amount of proof? As mentioned there are lots of myths that are written in the first person by people claiming to be eye-witnesses to events that are just as if not less 'epic' then the bible.

[Karras]

Well, It would be nice to do a compairison between the Gospels and a made up account that we both agree is almost certainly false.

As much as comparative literature may be a facinating subject in it's own right, I am less inclined to indulge in this due to your repeated failure to substantiate the idea that your criteria lend anything to the veracity of the Bible. This is even ignoring the fact that you seem to be incorrect on a number of points anyway.

Haven't read much, but you guys are concentrated on jesus.

What about david and goliath, or god's SMITEFEST 400?

Well, the Old Testiment would be a pain in the ass to argue about , and also because Christianity revolves around Jesus, NOT the OT.

But then Jesus supposedly gets much of his credibility from the OT so it is not so easily dismissed. Or would you say that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are different and that Jesus lies about being there to follow on from the OT prophets?

The only compelling reason to disregard the OT is that you do not feel it supports your already dubious argument, which is really just a case of moving the goalposts as far as I can see.

[LoneMateria]

Well this discussion has moved right along while I was gone yesterday.  

Haven't read much, but you guys are concentrated on jesus.

What about david and goliath, or god's SMITEFEST 400?

Well, the Old Testiment would be a pain in the ass to argue about , and also because Christianity revolves around Jesus, NOT the OT.

Everything else is pretty much covered I just wanted to add something to Karras' points.  Jesus was a rabbi who preached and taught the OT.  At least according to the NT.  The reason Jesus is called Christ is because he fulfilled the OT prophecies (supposedly).  The OT plays a critical part for the acceptance of the NT, to dismiss the OT would be like trying to build a house while free falling.

Also now that I think of it I can dispute one claim you made Reginus even though the burden of proof isn't on me.  You said that no archeological evidence ever disproved anything in the bible.  I can think of one.  Nazareth didn't exist until the 4th century C.E.  Jesus couldn't be from a city that didn't exist.  

Like I said before though archeology (essentially proving a city existed) isn't evidence that claims made about people living in the city are true.  Just because New York exists doesn't mean Spiderman exists.