Are the Gospels Historicaly Reliable?

[LoneMateria]

Reginus why do you think they are historically reliable?

[Reginus]

Reginus why do you think they are historically reliable?

Whoa, you just made Jesus facepalm:

Jk As far as the question goes, why don't you ask Braxton?

[LoneMateria]

Because you aren't braxton.  I feel I can have a more honest discussion with you then him.  He just wants to debate to show his congregation that atheists are easily defeated.  Debates are usually skewed by people who agree with you and don't.  I'd rather have an honest discussion.  You obviously posted this thread for a reason even if you can't defend the view you have.  Honest discussion is productive so lets have an honest discussion about this.

[Reginus]

Very well then. How bout this: you pick a text or story that claims to be eyewitness and accurate (though you think is false), then after I do some research on it, we'll compare it to the Gospels based on the 9 points.
1. Does the writer(s) claim to be an eye witness?
2. Is the story full of irrelevant details that typicaly accompainy an eye witness acount?
3. Does the account have material that would be damaging or down-grading to the author(s)?
4. If the account was writen by multiple people, are there unusaly common consitancies in minor details, or fundamental differences that stand out?
5. Does the text resemble a legend? (ex. I would consiter it legendary if in the end, the protagonist just barely managed to defeat some sort of powerful monster)

6. Would there be a reason for fabrication of the account? Would the story benefit the author(s) in any significant manner?
7. Do unrelated texts of the same time period and place conform parts of the story, or do they conflict with it?
8. Do archeological finding conflict with or confirm the story?
9. Was the envirnment that the account was written in hostile to the story? (Pretty much anything goes in our fiction oriented society, but it wasn't like this at other times. However, if someone wrote an account accusing Mother Terisa of murder, this would definatly be a good example of a story being born in a hostile envirnment.)

Fair enough? It could be anything from a scientology book to a novel written in first person format (lol your probably thinking "same thing").

But like I said, I won't be able to contribute much to a discussion of "Who wrote Luke's account, and at what place and at what time?"

[LoneMateria]

Um... I think you missed what I was saying.  I wanted to know why YOU thought the bible is historically reliable.  And why that 9 point stuff?  We've already demonstrated why its wrong, why use that?  Unless you can demonstrate why our claims about it are wrong and it's an accurate method then we will go nowhere with this conversation. we will just be repeating ourselves like an 80 year old married couple.

[Reginus]

Um... I think you missed what I was saying.  I wanted to know why YOU thought the bible is historically reliable.

Uhhh... because it conforms to the nine criteria...

And why that 9 point stuff? We've already demonstrated why its wrong, why use that? Unless you can demonstrate why our claims about it are wrong and it's an accurate method then we will go nowhere with this conversation.

The majority of the claims in this topic were something like "If the Gospels fit criteria x, and story y fits criteria x as well, then if the Gospels are reliable, myth y must be historicaly reliable as well." That is why we I am suggesting that we do a compairison between an account of your choosing and the Gospels, basing the compairison on the 9 criteria. If the 9 criteria are an inaccurate method, than it will become apparent after we test a made-up or mythological account against them.

[LoneMateria]

I'm going to be skeptical here so forgive me.  Are you telling me you didn't accept the Gospels before you heard of the 9 criterion you mentioned?  Or are you using them to reinforce what you already believed?

The bible is the only book that can make a prophecy and then fulfill that prophecy later on in the book and it be considered true.  Also we have evidence that later Christians changed the bible to make it look like Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies.  But thats a side note to what you said.    

If the Gospels fit criteria x, and story y fits criteria x as well, then if the Gospels are reliable, myth y must be historicaly reliable as well."

The thing is with the Gospels what can be considered criteria x?  We have the name of cities existing and thats almost completely what we have to go on.  However that does not lend credit to any miracles or other supernatural claims that occurred.  To steal a quote extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Citing one passage as proof for another (especially in the same book) does not fit that bill.

On top of that we have to establish that the Gospels are reliable, you are assuming they are in the premise here which by definition is begging the question.  Thats what I wanted to have a conversation about why do YOU think they Gospels are reliable.

[Karras]

Congrats on failing to address most of the criticism of your little list.

Very well then. How bout this: you pick a text or story that claims to be eyewitness and accurate (though you think is false), then after I do some research on it, we'll compare it to the Gospels based on the 9 points.

A more worthwhile challenge would be for you to substantiate the claim that these criteria actually mean anything.

1. Does the writer(s) claim to be an eye witness?

If memory serves, not all of the Gospel writers even make this claim (do any?). But then, anybody can claim anything. That does not automatically make it true.

2. Is the story full of irrelevant details that typicaly accompainy an eye witness acount?

Just about any book I have ever read. Again, what is your point? Do you think humanity was incapable of creative writing back then?

3. Does the account have material that would be damaging or down-grading to the author(s)?

Who were the authors again?

A character in a work of fiction is only as smart as the author (whoever they may have been). Do you know what the easiest way is to make a character look smarter or otherwise superior? Simple really, make those around them look dumber and/or inferior. This is a common tactic in various methods of story telling. Want to make Jesus look smart? Just have the disciples appear to have no idea what he is talking about. Want to make him appear morally superior? Just highlight the human flaws in the disciples.

4. If the account was writen by multiple people, are there unusaly common consitancies in minor details, or fundamental differences that stand out?

Perhaps you could substantiate the claim that there is anything special about the Bible in this respect? Only, I have seen plenty of people list inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible. Perhaps you could also explain to us just how one judges the optimum amount of inconsistencies v accuracies in differing accounts and what you base this on?

5. Does the text resemble a legend? (ex. I would consiter it legendary if in the end, the protagonist just barely managed to defeat some sort of powerful monster)

Does such a book really have to involve slaying dragons or similar? If so, why? If that is not the subject of the story, why should the authors feel the need to pad it out with such things? I already cited the works of David Gemmell. Many of his books include little or no fantastical elements, yet are pure fiction.

However, you do realise do you not that the Bible is more than just the New Testament? Even if you can convince yourself that walking on water, healing the sick, raising from the dead and rising bodily into heaven are somehow not "legendary" enough, how about talking burning bushes, global floods, epic battles, plagues of locusts, just general plagues and all the rest? I suppose you are probably of the "ah, but that is just allegory" persuasion but I have yet to speak to a single theist who has been able to explain how one tells a literal account from allegory. Furthermore, if you get to dismiss fantastical stuff as just allegory, you have just made this point unfalsifiable for your side which arguably shows staggering dishonesty on the part of anyone indulging in this kind of hand waving apologetics.

6. Would there be a reason for fabrication of the account? Would the story benefit the author(s) in any significant manner?

You really do love false dichotomies, don't you? Why does it have to be either truth or a deliberate fabrication? Can they not have merely been mistaken?

Remind me again, who were the authors?

How can we judge how they would have benefited without knowing who they were with any certainty? Since they were likely not written by the original disciples, it is perfectly possible that they were written by people with an agenda and something to gain. Would the disciples have gained? I am not sure but I do not see as this is relevant either way as we can only speculate about them since they probably did not write them.

7. Do unrelated texts of the same time period and place conform parts of the story, or do they conflict with it?

Which texts? Examples please. Do any agree with the supernatural events or do they merely provide some evidence that Jesus the man existed? There is pretty compelling evidence that the pharoahs existed, yet there is none to confirm any who claimed to be gods were indeed that.

8. Do archeological finding conflict with or confirm the story?

Examples of archeological finding that confirm the Bible? In particular, the supernatural aspects? Once again, there is acheological evidence for the pharoahs but none for their divinity.

9. Was the envirnment that the account was written in hostile to the story? (Pretty much anything goes in our fiction oriented society, but it wasn't like this at other times. However, if someone wrote an account accusing Mother Terisa of murder, this would definatly be a good example of a story being born in a hostile envirnment.)

What would this prove? I think you will also find that plenty of people were opposed to the spread of Islam throughout history, especially in it's early days. Is the Koran true?

Are you honestly suggesting that nobody has ever written anything that was unpopluar at the time, in it's native society, but became popluar later or elsewhere?

But like I said, I won't be able to contribute much to a discussion of "Who wrote Luke's account, and at what place and at what time?"

Perhaps you should come back when you can contribute? Much of what you are saying relies upon some degree of certainty as to the authorship of the gospels, otherwise we are merely speculating about who the author was and what might have motivated them.

I really think you should take the time to explain to us exactly how you came to the conclusion that the points you raise here (even assuming the accuracy of them) can be best explained by the 100% truthful nature of the supernatural events in the Bible. So far, all I am seeing is a bad attempt to be a book critic.

[Arctonyx]

There are no reasons to believe that the Gospels are historically accurate any more then any other religious text.

K, what ever floats your boat dude.  

Well your 9 points have been shot down numerous times. The fact is that there is no reason to believe the gospels are more accurate then any other religious text.

[Reginus]

I'm going to be skeptical here so forgive me.  Are you telling me you didn't accept the Gospels before you heard of the 9 criterion you mentioned?  Or are you using them to reinforce what you already believed?

The latter, as I was born to Christian parents, but I don't see how there is anything wrong with that. When you were very young, you were probably told that you lived on a round planet called Earth. You had no evidence for this, but simply believed this because it was told to you. When you got older, you likely realized there was quite a bit of evidence for this (pics from the moon, etc) so your beliefs didn't change.

The bible is the only book that can make a prophecy and then fulfill that prophecy later on in the book and it be considered true.  Also we have evidence that later Christians changed the bible to make it look like Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies.  But thats a side note to what you said.

You have to be very careful not to make a statment like "one passage was changed, therefore all of the passages in all of the Gospels are false." But like I said, we might have to pass over discussion of the specifics of this, simply because I'm not a New Testiment scholar (and you would likely need one.)

The thing is with the Gospels what can be considered criteria x?  We have the name of cities existing and thats almost completely what we have to go on.  However that does not lend credit to any miracles or other supernatural claims that occurred.  To steal a quote extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Citing one passage as proof for another (especially in the same book) does not fit that bill.

Since when do we have nothing to go on besides the names of the cities??? Anyway, I personaly think that the Gospels are much more similar to real, first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and/or mythology. That's why I want to have a discussion about the similarities and differences between the Gospels, and some sort of well known, made-up story. You seem very reluctant to consider the Gospels in a historical context, with your suggestion that the Gospels on their own don't prove anything. None the less, we do have some seperate historical evidence, such as the explossion in Chrisitanity, that suggests that Jesus might have actualy preformed some sort of supernatural acts.

On top of that we have to establish that the Gospels are reliable, you are assuming they are in the premise here which by definition is begging the question.  Thats what I wanted to have a conversation about why do YOU think they Gospels are reliable.

I think that they are historicaly reliable because they are much more similar to accurate first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and myths, and because much of what they say is backed by seperate sources of the same time period. That is the current reason why I believe them, but if you are asking why I first came to believe in them, then it was because I was told that they are accurate. As I stated in the top, I don't think this is bad, or evidence against my current opinions, as humans are simply programmed to learn from others (without asking "why?") in their first years of life.

By the way to all the other folks on the forums, I'm sorry that I havn't had a chance to cover your citicism, because:
A. A lot of them revolve around making a compairison between the Gospels and some sort of made up legend (such as Santa Clause), and I would like to cover these sometime in my discussion with LoneMateria
B. Because I just started school this week, so since I'm running cross-country as well, I really haven't had much extra time. Fortunatly, it's the weekend so I should have quite a bit more time in the next couple of days.

[Arctonyx]

The latter, as I was born to Christian parents, but I don't see how there is anything wrong with that. When you were very young, you were probably told that you lived on a round planet called Earth. You had no evidence for this, but simply believed this because it was told to you. When you got older, you likely realized there was quite a bit of evidence for this (pics from the moon, etc) so your beliefs didn't change.

If you were presented with evidence against them would your views change? If my parents had told me the Earth was flat, then I was presented with pictures of a spherical Earth I would have either thought the pictures were false or altered my beliefs, and there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is not flat. However if you were presented with enough evidence, would you ever consider the gospels to not be historically reliable?

You have to be very careful not to make a statment like "one passage was changed, therefore all of the passages in all of the Gospels are false." But like I said, we might have to pass over discussion of the specifics of this, simply because I'm not a New Testiment scholar (and you would likely need one.)

You've made several arguments that are "This one passage is true, therefore all of the passages in the Gospels are true". In fact your entire archaeological argument revolves around this premise.

Since when do we have nothing to go on besides the names of the cities??? Anyway, I personaly think that the Gospels are much more similar to real, first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and/or mythology. That's why I want to have a discussion about the similarities and differences between the Gospels, and some sort of well known, made-up story. You seem very reluctant to consider the Gospels in a historical context, with your suggestion that the Gospels on their own don't prove anything. None the less, we do have some seperate historical evidence, such as the explossion in Chrisitanity, that suggests that Jesus might have actualy preformed some sort of supernatural acts.

What other historical examples are there of occurrences/places in the bible? Wouldn't these be countered all too easily by the obviously false claims of the Bible? And have you ever read Greek mythology? They are written as first hand accounts, not people claiming to write based on others claiming to be eye witness testimonies. Many Greek myths are written in the first person by 'eye-witnesses', wouldn't that by your argument, make them more believable then the Bible? And where are you getting this 'explosion of Christianity' from? The explosion of Christianity didn't really happen until the Emperor Constantine, which was several hundred years are the events of the New Testament. Again your argument gives more credence to others, as the explosion in Islam happened much sooner after their prophets death and lead to a prosperous society much more quickly then Christianity ever did.

I think that they are historicaly reliable because they are much more similar to accurate first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and myths, and because much of what they say is backed by seperate sources of the same time period. That is the current reason why I believe them, but if you are asking why I first came to believe in them, then it was because I was told that they are accurate. As I stated in the top, I don't think this is bad, or evidence against my current opinions, as humans are simply programmed to learn from others (without asking "why?") in their first years of life.

Again Greek mythology is even closer to first hand accounts then the Gospels are, and none of what the Gospels say is backed up by separate sources. Those 'separate sources' don't even mention Christianity until several decades after his supposed ascension, and even then don't call Jesus by his name, instead referring to a vague 'Christus' figure. And yes humans are programmed to learn their parents views, especially in early life where their brains aren't developed enough to allow for their own reasoned decision making. However if your parents have told you that the Earth is flat, and you believed them throughout your childhood, are you required when presented with the mountains of evidence that the Earth is not flat to stick to your parents points of views?

A. A lot of them revolve around making a compairison between the Gospels and some sort of made up legend (such as Santa Clause), and I would like to cover these sometime in my discussion with LoneMateria

Many here would argue that God was a made up legend, and there is no more evidence for God then there is for Santa Clause or Leprechauns.

[Ninteen45]

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

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

[Reginus]

If you were presented with evidence against them would your views change? If my parents had told me the Earth was flat, then I was presented with pictures of a spherical Earth I would have either thought the pictures were false or altered my beliefs, and there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is not flat. However if you were presented with enough evidence, would you ever consider the gospels to not be historically reliable?

Of course.

You've made several arguments that are "This one passage is true, therefore all of the passages in the Gospels are true". In fact your entire archaeological argument revolves around this premise.

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.

What other historical examples are there of occurrences/places in the bible? Wouldn't these be countered all too easily by the obviously false claims of the Bible? And have you ever read Greek mythology? They are written as first hand accounts, not people claiming to write based on others claiming to be eye witness testimonies. Many Greek myths are written in the first person by 'eye-witnesses', wouldn't that by your argument, make them more believable then the Bible? And where are you getting this 'explosion of Christianity' from? The explosion of Christianity didn't really happen until the Emperor Constantine, which was several hundred years are the events of the New Testament. Again your argument gives more credence to others, as the explosion in Islam happened much sooner after their prophets death and lead to a prosperous society much more quickly then Christianity ever did.

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. 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.

Again Greek mythology is even closer to first hand accounts then the Gospels are, and none of what the Gospels say is backed up by separate sources. Those 'separate sources' don't even mention Christianity until several decades after his supposed ascension, and even then don't call Jesus by his name, instead referring to a vague 'Christus' figure. And yes humans are programmed to learn their parents views, especially in early life where their brains aren't developed enough to allow for their own reasoned decision making. However if your parents have told you that the Earth is flat, and you believed them throughout your childhood, are you required when presented with the mountains of evidence that the Earth is not flat to stick to your parents points of views?

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. 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.

Many here would argue that God was a made up legend, and there is no more evidence for God then there is for Santa Clause or Leprechauns.

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.

[Reginus]

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.

[LoneMateria]

The latter, as I was born to Christian parents, but I don't see how there is anything wrong with that. When you were very young, you were probably told that you lived on a round planet called Earth. You had no evidence for this, but simply believed this because it was told to you. When you got older, you likely realized there was quite a bit of evidence for this (pics from the moon, etc) so your beliefs didn't change.

Theres nothing wrong with being born to Christian parents, I never said there was (my parents consider themselves Christian).  The way you were making it seem was that the reason you believed the gospels was because of those criterion which I pointed out (and you acknowledged) that it's not the case.  I was trying to point out indoctranation was the reason you believed it and that you probably haven't examined any evidence or literature that contradict that claim.  Children are predisposed to believing anything an authority figure tells them.  Children have no filter to separate good information from bad information.   This is true of Children of our species.  My parents told me there was a god and that he looked over me and if I believed in him I would go to heaven.  Well, I know now my parents are not infallible and in order to be intellectually honest with myself I ended up rejecting my belief in God.

There is a ton of evidence for a spherical earth, yet there are still some groups of religious people who say the earth is flat based on the bible.  They perform bad science when they start with a conclusion then look for evidence to support it.  When it comes to the gospels you would expect a several things if they were historically reliable.  First you would expect them to depict reality which they don't, in reality there is nothing supernatural taking place, the gospels there are.  Secondly you would expect few if any mistakes, and you wouldn't expect to change from the earliest works to the present works.  Both of these are false biblical scholars have determined more mistakes, and changes since our earliest gospels are at least 200,000 (conservative number) and some go as far to say there are 500,000+ and a few say you can't count all the changes from the earliest works we have to present.  What this means is there are more changes in the gospels then there are words in the NT.  And third you would expect contemporary accounts of events happening which we don't have, we have accounts of Christians existing, but no proof of anything in the gospels happening.

Since when do we have nothing to go on besides the names of the cities??? Anyway, I personaly think that the Gospels are much more similar to real, first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and/or mythology. That's why I want to have a discussion about the similarities and differences between the Gospels, and some sort of well known, made-up story. You seem very reluctant to consider the Gospels in a historical context, with your suggestion that the Gospels on their own don't prove anything. None the less, we do have some seperate historical evidence, such as the explossion in Chrisitanity, that suggests that Jesus might have actualy preformed some sort of supernatural acts.

What do we have to go on then?  How exactly does the existence of Christians prove the reliability and accuracy of gospels let alone supernatural acts?

Yes i'm reluctant to consider the Gospels in a historical context because of what I've learned about them.  Like everything though I would reconsider if you could prove they are reliable, until then I reject the claim they are reliable and will treat them as such.  If you have some evidence to the contrary please present it, I would be happy to hear it.

I think that they are historicaly reliable because they are much more similar to accurate first-hand accounts than they are to fabricated accounts and myths, and because much of what they say is backed by seperate sources of the same time period. That is the current reason why I believe them, but if you are asking why I first came to believe in them, then it was because I was told that they are accurate. As I stated in the top, I don't think this is bad, or evidence against my current opinions, as humans are simply programmed to learn from others (without asking "why?") in their first years of life.

You do know that Luke says in the beginning of his gospel that he wasn't an eye-witness but he will act like he is throughout his gospel right?  Then on top of that Matthew literally plagiarized from Mark.  I'm curious what separate sources are you talking about from the same time period and how do these sources prove the supernatural events and miracles that happened?  Remember what I said before extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm glad you admit you were told they were accurate and thats why you believe them. I usually can't get theists to admit that it shows you have much more honestly then many people.   I hope you see how unreliable that is, that you should look at the evidence for and against your belief.  The flying spaghetti monster was always a good example of why you shouldn't always believe what people told you.  Just remember if your belief is true the evidence should be in support of it, if its not then its time to revise that belief.

Real life is more important then internet life Reginus!  Reginus you made a long post while I wrote this i'm gonna take a break and i'll see if I can comment on it.