Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Randy Carson]

One last thing: thanks for destroying your own position.  If you really want to suggest that I don't have to accept the existence of the far side of the moon because I haven't seen it for myself, then I don't have to accept the existence of your god either, since I definitely haven't seen him.

Correct. You have not seen God.

However, you can accept the reliable testimony of honest men about Him. Or not. The choice is yours but the illustration is sound. You rely on others to tell you about things you have not seen in the natural realm, but you refuse (simply because you don't want to) to accept the testimony of reliable men regarding the supernatural.

This is not consistent, is it?

Unlike your god, however, I have good observational reasons to think there is a far side of the moon, good enough for me to feel comfortable saying I know (within the limits of scientific accuracy) there's a far side, and even to accept the evidence of the photography, without having to just rely on a mystical "someone said so".

Sure, but that's not the point. My point is that philosophically, you rely on the word of reliable men to tell you things you have not verified for yourself.

Why not apply that principle to the testimony of reliable men about God?

[Randy Carson]

Fucking circular logic? Good luck with that.

Good point. My headline should have read "Jesus' Claims of Divinity Found in Scripture."

Thanks for sharpening my sword.

[Randy Carson]

In two other threads, I have made the case for the accuracy of the NT texts which we have today and the early dating of the gospels. By themselves, these two points do not prove the claims of Christianity with regard to the resurrection of Jesus; however, they are essential foundation stones which must be established as part of a chain of evidence that points to the historical reliability of the NT and, ultimately, to the conclusion that belief in the resurrection is reasonable.

Rather than continue one link at a time, I have decided to post the full sequence of arguments that can be offered in defense of the Christian claims that Jesus rose from the dead.

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament â€" Summation

Catholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.”

Here is that evidence.

The four gospels have been accurately delivered to us (meaning we know what they wrote).

•   Nearly 6,000 copies of the New Testament can be studied using textual criticism.
•   The Telephone Game analogy and all attempts to claim distortion via oral tradition are bogus.
   
The authors wrote early (meaning it was possible that they were actual eyewitnesses).

Silence regarding the Destruction of the Temple (AD 70) and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul) (AD 64-65) suggest an early date.

The authors recorded eyewitness accounts (meaning they either were or had access to actual eyewitnesses).

•   All of the early sources attribute the gospels to the traditional authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The synoptic gospels are not attributed to major figures such as Peter, James or Mary; instead, they are assigned to a tax-collector (Matthew), a lesser character who may not have been present (Mark), and a gentile (Luke). This is one example of how the gospels meet the Criterion of Embarrassment.
•   Matthew was an apostle, and may have been chosen specifically because of his record-keeping skills which were needed to make contemporaneous records of Jesus’ teaching and deeds.
•   Luke interviewed people who were present. This may have included Mary for the nativity account.
•   Mark was the companion of Peter, the leader of the apostles.
•   John was an apostle.

The authors wanted to write accurate accounts (as opposed to pious fiction).

•   Luke and John specifically state that they are writing so that others may know the truth.
•   The disciples believed they were passing on the words of God â€" a responsibility they took seriously.

The authors wrote accurate accounts which are verified and corroborated.

•   Jewish and Roman accounts corroborate the basic story.
•   Verifiable external evidence suggests that the authors had intimate knowledge of the geography, architecture, religious and political leadership, religious customs, language of the day, etc. Even the names of the people appear in the correct percentages.
•   Unintentional internal corroboration provides additional evidence that the gospels are accurate.
•   Accuracy regarding these details adds to the impression that the authors are credible.
   
The authors were accountable to other eyewitnesses â€" both supportive and hostile.

•   Many eyewitnesses were still alive at the time the gospels and epistles were written. Anyone disagreeing with a gospel could have easily refuted an erroneous account.
•   The Jews did not deny the tomb was empty; they offered alternative explanations for why it was.

The authors had no ulterior motive.

What did the authors of the gospels gain from their work? The three classic motives are: power, money, and sex. Not only did Christianity reject these things in general, but the authors were persecuted and killed.


Additional Points for Discussion:

•   The disciples suffered and died for their beliefs. None recanted their story at the last minute to save himself. People are willing to die for what they believe, but rarely are people willing to die for something they know to be a lie.
•   Skeptics such as James and Saul were converted.
•   Key social structures were changed in the wake of the resurrection of Jesus.
•   The emergence of the Church suggests that it was founded by someone, directed by someone and based upon the life and teachings of someone. Jesus is not a legend, and the New Testament is not a work of fiction.

TWO MORE APPROACHES

J. Warner Wallace

•   The gospels were written very early
•   The gospels were transmitted carefully
•   The gospel information was protected and preserved
•   The gospel claims about Jesus were consistent with non-Christian sources
•   The gospel accounts were testable

Testing the Eye-witnesses

Were the gospels reliably preserved for us?
Where the authors present?
   Were they written early enough to have been authored by true eyewitnesses?
Where they verified or corroborated in any way?
   Is the testimony of the gospel writers confirmed by outside sources and evidence?
   Is there credible evidence for Jesus outside the gospels?
Were they accurate?
   Did the gospel writers record what they had seen and heard accurately?
Were they biased or did they have an ulterior motive (power, money, sex)?
   Were the gospel writers motivated to lie about their testimony?
Can the biographies of Jesus be trusted?
Do the gospels stand up to scrutiny?
Does archaeology confirm of contradict the gospels?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"The authors had no ulterior motive."

Why do idiots report UFOs? Why to people lie about the size of the fish they caught. Why do men brag about banging women they've never met? There's no prophet to any of this.

[SGOS]

Catholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.”

So one piece of flawed evidence doesn't prove anything, but a whole bunch of flawed evidence might?

Yikes!  Hardly a slam dunk, wouldn't you say?

[Randy Carson]

"The authors had no ulterior motive."

Why do idiots report UFOs?

Why to people lie about the size of the fish they caught. Why do men brag about banging women they've never met?

Why do you think the disciples of Jesus claimed that they had seen him alive after the crucifixion?

[Randy Carson]

So one piece of flawed evidence doesn't prove anything, but a whole bunch of flawed evidence might?

Yikes!  Hardly a slam dunk, wouldn't you say?

If you think that any one piece of the evidence is flawed, then point it out and we can discuss it.

Alternatively, you might consider that while anyone piece of evidence would be insufficient to convince you that Jesus rose from the dead, cumulatively, the evidence demonstrates that the resurrection is not only reasonable but probable.

[SGOS]

If you think that any one piece of the evidence is flawed, then point it out and we can discuss it.

I'm quoting the author, who admits that one piece of evidence may be weak and then goes on to set the stage for an abundance of weakness proving the case:

Catholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.”

Alternatively, you might consider that while anyone piece of evidence would be insufficient to convince you that Jesus rose from the dead, cumulatively, the evidence demonstrates that the resurrection is not only reasonable but probable.

Only one piece of solid evidence is sufficient, and then you are home free.  Following that with a barrage of weak evidence doesn't add strength to the original proof.  It may even weaken the case.  Simple, concise, and elegant is sufficient.  You prove it once, and you don't have to do it again.  An onslaught of further verbiage acts as a distraction, and is common in typical Christian arguments.

The strategy is to make a dubious claim, and then add warm fuzzies that support already instilled beliefs among the indoctrinated.  The claim is never proven, but the tactic elicits a lot of positive head nodding among the sympathetic who by that time are awash in feelings of ecstasy and applauding wildly.

[SGOS]

Why do you think the disciples of Jesus claimed that they had seen him alive after the crucifixion?

I don't know.  Why does Batman suffer so much personal angst over whether he's doing the right thing or not?  It's just part of the mythology.

[Randy Carson]

I'm quoting the author, who admits that one piece of evidence may be weak and then goes on to set the stage for an abundance of weakness proving the case:

Then you have overlooked the significance of the second portion of his statement.

Only one piece of solid evidence is sufficient, and then you are home free.  Following that with a barrage of weak evidence doesn't add strength to the original proof.  It may even weaken the case.  Simple, concise, and elegant is sufficient.  You prove it once, and you don't have to do it again.  An onslaught of further verbiage acts as a distraction, and is common in typical Christian arguments.

Are you an attorney? A police officer? A judge? I'm not but I ask because what you are saying does not line up with the practices of our judicial system.

Detectives who investigate crimes and the district attorney's who prosecute them DO NOT go to trial with only one solid piece of evidence.

Nor have I as shown in the OP and other threads.

[Randy Carson]

I don't know.  Why does Batman suffer so much personal angst over whether he's doing the right thing or not?  It's just part of the mythology.

Okay, you don't know. That's an honest admission, and I thank you for it.

Would you like to venture a guess? This may help:

There are five minimal facts that do not depend upon the inspiration of scripture and five theories about why the disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. They are:

Five facts:

1.  Jesus died.
2.  Disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.
3.  James the skeptical brother believed.
4.  Paul the persecutor believed.
5.  Empty tomb.

Five theories:

1.  Jesus rose.
2.  Jesus resuscitated.
3.  Disciples lied.
4.  Disciples hallucinated.
5.  Church legend.

If you have another theory to explain the five facts, add it to the list.

Otherwise, which theory do you find most compelling in light of the first list of events?

[SGOS]

Then you have overlooked the significance of the second portion of his statement:

“No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.”

No, I didn't overlook it.  I read the arguments which followed, and just as he already admitted, they are all individually weak.

Are you an attorney? A police officer? A judge? I'm not but I ask because what you are saying does not line up with the practices of our judicial system.

God forbid we should base a debate over the truth of the Bible following the form of our judicial system, which renders a verdict based on the opinion of a group of uninformed laymen, who are selected before the trial even begins by lawyers trying to anticipate the sympathetic leanings of jurors to their own biases.  Such a low standard of "proof" isn't acceptable here. 

[SGOS]

If you have another theory to explain the five facts, add it to the list.

Otherwise, which theory do you find most compelling in light of the first list of events?

Hell, I don't even consider any of these facts.  And you want me to come up with theories to explain them?

[Poison Tree]

Was Jesus born and raised in Nazareth as one would conclude from reading the historically reliable accounts of John and Mark or was he born in Bethlehem where his parents lived until fleeing to Egypt after a visit from magi to avoid Herod's slaughter of the innocent as told in the historically reliable account of Matthew or was Jesus born while his parents traveled from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for the census before presenting him in the temple and returning home to Nazareth as told in the historically reliable account of Luke?

5.  Empty tomb.

It was standard practice for bodies of crucified individuals to be denied entombment

[Randy Carson]

No, I didn't overlook it.  I read the arguments which followed, and just as he already admitted, they are all individually weak.

Here it is again:

Catholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.”

Where does Trent Horn suggest that they are all individually weak? He doesn't. What he acknowledges (and this is true of just about any case based upon indirect evidence) is that the combined effect of the evidence we do have may be sufficient to convince someone that God's existence is more probable than not.

If you draw from that that each point is "weak", well, that's your opinion as a a member of the jury, of course. Other people disagree.

God forbid we should base a debate over the truth of the Bible following the form of our judicial system, which renders a verdict based on the opinion of a group of uninformed laymen, who are selected before the trial even begins by lawyers trying to anticipate the sympathetic leanings of jurors to their own biases.  Such a low standard of "proof" isn't acceptable here.

Heh...you make an excellent point.

Which is why I have endeavored to provide EXPERT opinion...the kind that attorneys would call...rather than the mere opinions of uninformed laymen.

See, when uninformed laymen like reasonist or Mike assert their opinions regarding Christianity or Catholicism, their testimonies carry no weight. When scholars with PhD's in the relevant fields like Bart Ehrman admit that Jesus existed and that the gospels can be accepted as historical proof of his existence, that is EXPERT testimony.

And since Ehrman is an atheist, his testimony is even more significant BECAUSE HE IS A HOSTILE WITNESS.

So, we should listen to the big boys and ignore the lap dogs snarling and snapping around our ankles.