Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Randy Carson]

I comprehend. The proof that the bible is the authentic word of a god is....the bible.  Must make sense in your world...

Obviously, you do NOT comprehend.

The Bible can be viewed as mere history.
That history tells us that Jesus died and rose from the dead.
If Jesus rose from the dead, then what He said must be true.
What He said was that He would establish one Church on earth which would speak on His behalf.
A Church which speaks for God cannot teach error.
That Church has infallibly taught that the Bible is not mere history but the inspired word of God.

So, we're not using circular logic, lackofreasonist. We're using REASON to begin with mere history and arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is inspired.

[Mike Cl]

Obviously, you do NOT comprehend.

The Bible can be viewed as mere history.
That history tells us that Jesus died and rose from the dead.
If Jesus rose from the dead, then what He said must be true.
What He said was that He would establish one Church on earth which would speak on His behalf.
A Church which speaks for God cannot teach error.
That Church has infallibly taught that the Bible is not mere history but the inspired word of God.

So, we're not using circular logic, lackofreasonist. We're using REASON to begin with mere history and arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is inspired.

Randy, that is what you think 'reason' is?  You say the bible can be viewed as history. II suppose you could if you ignored history)  And that the bible history tells us is that Jesus died and arose. (but not without contradiction in it's stories)  If Jesus arose from the dead then what he said must be true--IF is an unproven assumption on your part; and what he said has not been historically proven, and is pure conjecture.  Millions of christians disagree with the assertion that Jesus was to establish one church--and those that do, argue about which church that was.  A church that speaks for god cannot teach error?????  You have yet to establish there is a god.  And your church has not changed it's position on anything?  Really????  And just because your flawed organization you call a church has taught the bible, does not mean it is not infallible.  Plus how can a 'word' be inspired by a fiction?  Well, I guess it can be--one can insist that Bugs Bunny speaks for The Lord or some such. 

Randy, you 'reasons' are only assertions you maintain are true.  Assertions are not proof.  I have yet to see any proof for your assertions concerning the bible or jesus.

[reasonist]

Obviously, you do NOT comprehend.

The Bible can be viewed as mere history.
That history tells us that Jesus died and rose from the dead.
If Jesus rose from the dead, then what He said must be true.
What He said was that He would establish one Church on earth which would speak on His behalf.
A Church which speaks for God cannot teach error.
That Church has infallibly taught that the Bible is not mere history but the inspired word of God.

So, we're not using circular logic, lackofreasonist. We're using REASON to begin with mere history and arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is inspired.

No, history tells us nothing of that sort. The bible does. And that carries as much weight as Gulliver's Travel in terms of historical evidence.

"The church has infallibly taught that the bible is the inspired word of god." Do you sometimes reflect on what you write or do you just make it up as you go? The church teaches that the bible is infallible??? What the heck does that mean? Nothing! An institution validates a book that is it's own dogma? How unusual! LOL 

[Randy Carson]

Randy, that is what you think 'reason' is?  You say the bible can be viewed as history. II suppose you could if you ignored history) 

Obviously, I'm not out on a limb here, Mike. Even Ehrman acknowledges the usefulness of the NT as reliable history. (I'll exclude portions of the OT, obviously.)

And that the bible history tells us is that Jesus died and arose. (but not without contradiction in it's stories)

But this is not a problem for Christianity any more than it is for detectives investigating a crime. If the gospels had NO differences, you would claim that they were really just one account and not four. You'd be screaming about "collusion" and "conspiracy". As it is, that option is not open to you. Therefore, you go with what you've got...and that is the very normal sort of variations in the accounts that any seasoned police officer would expect from four independent eyewitnesses. This strengthens MY position, not yours, Mike.

If Jesus arose from the dead then what he said must be true--IF is an unproven assumption on your part; and what he said has not been historically proven, and is pure conjecture. 

Fair enough, Mike. But what is the standard in a court of law? Proof beyond ALL doubt? Or beyond reasonable doubt? It is the latter, and juries are cautioned against speculation of what MIGHT have happened. We have four independent eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. The resurrection explains:

1. Why the believers went from being fearful men in hiding to bold proclaimers of the gospel.
2. Why Paul, the enemy of the Church, went from arresting believers to being a believer himself.
3. Why James, the "brother" of Jesus, went from being a skeptic to the leader of the Church in Jerusalem.
4. Why the tomb was found empty.

Four eyewitnesses give us an explanation that I find beyond reasonable doubt: Jesus rose from the dead.

Millions of christians disagree with the assertion that Jesus was to establish one church--and those that do, argue about which church that was. 

Jesus promised to build one Church, and He is the head of that Church which is the body of Christ. That's red-letter gospel, Mike. No Christians believe that Jesus established more than one Church. They do disagree about the nature of that Church, however.

A church that speaks for god cannot teach error?????  You have yet to establish there is a god. 

Okay. We'll get there. But hypothetically, if God establishes a Church, can He allow it to teach falsely about Him? Nope. He must prevent the teaching of error.

And your church has not changed it's position on anything?  Really???? 

I never said that. I have or will say that the Catholic Church has never formally taught error in matters of faith and morals. Further, I would say that the Church has never changed a doctrinal position such that the later position is contradictory to a former position. It has never been documented, and Protestants long to find such a case.

And just because your flawed organization you call a church has taught the bible, does not mean it is not infallible. 

Oh, the Catholic Church is flawed, alright. It's a human institution, after all. But the Church has infallibly taught that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God.

Plus how can a 'word' be inspired by a fiction?  Well, I guess it can be--one can insist that Bugs Bunny speaks for The Lord or some such. 

Randy, you 'reasons' are only assertions you maintain are true.  Assertions are not proof.  I have yet to see any proof for your assertions concerning the bible or jesus.

Start with the OP of this thread. Let me know whether my case for early dating of the gospels is beyond a reasonable doubt.

One step at a time, Mike. One step at a time.

[Randy Carson]

No, history tells us nothing of that sort. The bible does. And that carries as much weight as Gulliver's Travel in terms of historical evidence.

"The church has infallibly taught that the bible is the inspired word of god." Do you sometimes reflect on what you write or do you just make it up as you go? The church teaches that the bible is infallible??? What the heck does that mean? Nothing! An institution validates a book that is it's own dogma? How unusual! LOL

Nope. We can look at the NT as reliable sources of historical information because:

The NT was written early.
The NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who had access to eyewitnesses.
The NT was written by men who intended to write accurate accounts.
The NT was written by men whose attention to detail and accuracy has been corroborated by archaeology as well as non-canonical writings.
The NT was written for a community that had members were also eyewitnesses and could evaluate the accuracy of the gospels.

[reasonist]

Nope.

The NT was written early.
The NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who had access to eyewitnesses.
The NT was written by men who intended to write accurate accounts.
The NT was written by men whose attention to detail and accuracy has been corroborated by archaeology as well as non-canonical writings.
The NT was written for a community that had members were also eyewitnesses and could evaluate the accuracy of the gospels.

Oh boy! How do you know the bible was written by eyewitnesses? Because the book says so. All of the above points mean squat without proof.
Archeology? Really? Even the most ardent Israeli archeologists admit now that the Exodus and the 40 year Egyptian adventure was pure invention. They can't even point out where mount Sinai is. Obviously another invention. Uh well, maybe one day you will be honest with yourself.

[Randy Carson]

Oh boy! How do you know the bible was written by eyewitnesses? Because the book says so. All of the above points mean squat without proof.

No, because non-canonical sources say so. Here is that proof.

Is Mark’s Gospel an Early Memoir of the Apostle Peter?
By J. Warner Wallace
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-marks-gospel-an-early-memoir-of-the-apostle-peter/

The authorship of the Gospels is a matter of considerable debate amongst skeptics and critics of the New Testament canon. Mark’s Gospel is an early record of Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection, but Mark isn’t mentioned as an eyewitness in any of the Gospel accounts. How did Mark get his information about Jesus? There are several historical clues:

Papias said Mark scribed Peter’s teachings

Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (60-130AD) repeated the testimony of the old presbyters (disciples of the Apostles) who claimed Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome as he scribed the preaching of Peter (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15, Book 3 Chapter 30 and Book 6 Chapter 14). Papias wrote a five volume work entitled, “Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord”. In this treatise (which no longer exists), he quoted someone he identified as ‘the elder’, (most likely John the elder), a man who held considerable authority in Asia:

“And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.”

Irenaeus said Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter’s teaching

In his book, “Against Heresies” (Book 3 Chapter 1), Irenaeus (130-200AD) also reported Mark penned his Gospel as a scribe for Peter, adding the following detail:

“Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form”

Justin identified Mark’s Gospel with Peter

Early Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, wrote “Dialogue with Trypho” (approximately 150AD) and included this interesting passage:

“It is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….”

Justin, therefore, identified a particular Gospel as the ‘memoir’ of Peter and said this memoir described the sons of Zebedee as the ‘sons of thunder’. Only Mark’s Gospel describes John and James in this way, so it is reasonable to assume that the Gospel of Mark is the memoir of Peter.

Clement said Mark recorded Peter’s Roman preaching

Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD) wrote a book entitled “Hypotyposeis” (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15). In this ancient book, Clement refers to a tradition handed down from the “elders from the beginning”:

“And so great a joy of light shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally; and they did not cease until they had prevailed upon the man and so became responsible for the Scripture for reading in the churches.”

Eusebius also wrote an additional detail (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 14) related to Mark’s work with Peter:

“The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.”

This additional piece of information related to Peter’s reaction to Mark’s work is important, because it demonstrates that Clement is not simply repeating the information first established by Papias, but seems to have an additional source that provided him with something more, and something slightly different than Papias.

Tertullian affirmed Peter’s influence on the Gospel of Mark

Early Christian theologian and apologist, Tertullian (160-225AD), wrote a book that refuted the theology and authority of Marcion. The book was appropriately called, “Against Marcion” and in Book 4 Chapter 5, he described the Gospel of Mark:

“While that [gospel] which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was.”

The Muratorian Fragment confirmed Mark’s relationship to Peter

The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. Commonly dated to approximately 170AD, the first line reads:

“But he was present among them, and so he put [the facts down in his Gospel]”

This appears to be a reference to Mark’s presence at Peter’s talks and sermons in Rome, and the fact that he then recorded these messages then became the Gospel of Mark.

Origen attributed Mark’s Gospel to Peter

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 25) quoted a Gospel Commentary written by Origen (an early church father and theologian who lived 185-254AD) that explains the origin of the Gospels. This commentary also attributes the Gospel of Mark to Peter:

“In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.’ 1 Peter 5:13 And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.”

An Anti-Marcionite Prologue affirmed Peter’s connection to Mark

There are three Gospel ‘prologues’ that appear in many Latin Bibles from antiquity. Known as the “Anti-Marcionite Prologues”, they date to the 4th century or earlier. The prologue for the Gospel of Mark is particularly interesting:

“Mark declared, who is called ‘stump-fingered,’ because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.”

Now, it can be argued that Papias’ description of Mark’s collaboration with Peter in Rome is the earliest description available to us. In fact, skeptics have tried to argue that later Church sources are simply parroting Papias when they connect Mark to Peter. But there is no evidence to suggest that Papias is the sole source of information related to Peter and Mark, particularly when considering the slight variations in the subsequent attributions (such as Clement’s version). The subtle differences suggest that the claims came from different original sources. In addition, Justin Martyr’s tangential reference to the ‘sons of thunder’ strengthens the support for Peter’s involvement coming from a source other than Papias (who never makes this connection). In essence, a claim of dependency on Papias lacks specific evidence, and even if this were the case, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Papias’ original claim in the first place. The consistent record of history identifies Mark’s Gospel as a memoir of Peter’s life with Jesus.

[reasonist]

That might work with the flock in church but not here. There was no mention of a Jesus (there were hundreds of them at the time, it was a common name) until about 45 CE. That's about 15 years after his alleged death. That's like reading about Prince's death in 2031 as breaking news.
But it really doesn't matter if a Jesus existed or not. He was a Jew preaching Mosaic law to the Jews. No divinity, that's why his crucifixion was explained as sacrifice to forgive our sins. Which is of course complete nonsense if you think about that even a little bit. A omnipotent deity sends his son (who is also himself and a ghost) into certain death to forgive our sins. That is the only way to explain the torture death of a mortal human. The question arises: what was accomplished? What changed? Why did this god not forgive us in the first place? The absurdity of it all makes it plausible says Tertullian. That's probably the most sensible explanation I have read. Doesn't make it true in any case.

[Randy Carson]

OP, there is no evidence that a single word of JC's was recorded when he spoke it.

Yes and no.

First, there is every reason to consider the possibility that Jesus chose Matthew precisely because of his ability to read and write. It was not uncommon for teachers of antiquity to have disciples who recorded their teachings. The Q document, which contained sayings of Jesus, predated the gospels and was obviously compiled by someone.

Second, Jesus' teachings and sermons appear to be formed in the short, parable style that was commonly used by orators of antiquity because it facilitated recall.

Third, the disciples followed Jesus around for three years, so it's reasonable to think that they might have heard him preach the same message more than once in different towns and villages. Repetition is good for memorization. Repetition is good for memorization. Say it with me: Repetition is good for memorization.

Fourth, Jesus sent out the disciples on their own to preach in the towns around Galilee. So...what did they preach if not the same things that they had heard Jesus say? Did they do this entirely from memory? Or did they have a few outlines or notes from sermons they had heard him preach first?

Fifth, the era in question was an oral culture meaning that their memories were MUCH better than ours because they had to be. I barely know the phone numbers and a few birthdays of my family members because I don't have to store that with precise retrieval in my brain. I have an iPhone. In those days, people listened and remembered because they had to. There were no record, re-wind or pause buttons in their world.

FWIW, even today, people who practice can memorize the entire Qu'ran or massive portions of the OT. It's just not a skill that many of us have reason to develop.

[Randy Carson]

Yes, I got it.  You apparently believe the Illiad.  Further, we can have no more confidence in the accuracy of the old testament as well as the gospels, both of which are claimed to be true) than the Illiad.  In fact, when I read the Illiad in high school, I thought its fairy tale qualities resembled the Bible in remarkable ways.  It was one of the early things that got me to start questioning the accuracy of the Bible.

I believe that scholars who specialize in Homer believe they have an accurate text.

However, having an accurate text does not mean that the text is true. I can have a perfect text of Alice in Wonderland, but that does not make the Cheshire Cat real.

[reasonist]

However, having an accurate text does not mean that the text is true. I can have a perfect text of Alice in Wonderland, but that does not make the Cheshire Cat real.

LOL! That coming from you is precious!!!!!!!

[Randy Carson]

Randy, that one has to use probability to believe in the bible is proof that your god is at best shoddy and at worst a fiction.  I'll side with fiction.

Okay. That would be a mistake, but okay.

God cannot supply a coherent Word, or rules to live by?  Your god created all--everything.  Except it cannot seem to be able to accurately communicate with his crowning creations.  That is simply too odd to believe. 

Naturally, I disagree. But you also fail to consider that Catholics are not people of the Book; we are people of the Word. Jesus did not leave us a Book. Jesus promised to build a Church, and if the Bible disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow, the Catholic Church would continue on just fine.

To have his word come into human knowledge so late in it's history is quite puzzling; as is the fact that it was handed down to only a few in one section of the globe.  You creator cannot foresee the problem with languages?  He could not create a set of basic rules that all can read and understand?  He cannot have that set of rules sent everywhere?  There is no logic or sense to any of this.  Your god is simply a human created fiction.

Perhaps the problem is simply that you cannot understand His methodology of His logic. Or that you don't like it.

God formed a particular people (the Jews) over a long period of time. Then He entered into the world as a Jew. Not all of the Jews of His day got it, but enough of them did to get the Church started. Then He tasked the Church with spreading the message elsewhere.

Pretty straightforward, and I'm not sure how you would have Jesus offer himself as a sacrifice to God for the salvation of men simultaneously in every single culture around the globe - from the Arctic Circle to the steaming jungles of Central America, from the steppes of Russia to the Great Plains of the American west.

How would God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, live and die and rise again among the Romans, the Ming Dynasty and the Celts all at the same time?

[Randy Carson]

LOL! That coming from you is precious!!!!!!!

Yessss, it isss my precioussss. Golum!

But try to disprove my four-part OP, if you can.

Thanks.

[reasonist]

Again and again and again...I don't have prove or disprove anything. That is your department. You are the one who makes outlandish claims and needs to prove what you claim. So far nada, zilch, zippo.
Fact #1 is the resurrection of Jesus? Oh my!
That "fact' needs a number of assumptions before you even begin to talk about evidence. You have to assume that:

Jesus existed
He had disciples
That the disciples kept somehow records of Jesus' utterings
He performed miracles
He was crucified
He ascended to heaven
That the bible is true

none of this is proven. It's an ancient claim, nothing more. Based on ignorance of scientific facts and the gullibility of the masses.
If you want to prove anything you have to do better than that.

[Randy Carson]

Again and again and again...I don't have prove or disprove anything. That is your department. You are the one who makes outlandish claims and needs to prove what you claim. So far nada, zilch, zippo.
Fact #1 is the resurrection of Jesus? Oh my!
That "fact' needs a number of assumptions before you even begin to talk about evidence. You have to assume that:

Jesus existed
He had disciples
That the disciples kept somehow records of Jesus' utterings
He performed miracles
He was crucified
He ascended to heaven
That the bible is true

none of this is proven. It's an ancient claim, nothing more. Based on ignorance of scientific facts and the gullibility of the masses.
If you want to prove anything you have to do better than that.

Actually, reasonist, the fact that Jesus existed is a given by MOST skeptics...the more knowledgeable ones, anyway. There are numerous non-Christian authors who referred to him.

I suspect you already know this, correct?

I just started a new thread to avoid derailing this one any further.