Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[SGOS]

both situations were "observed" by and written by an author of fiction.  In the later case it was JRR Tolkien.  In the former...

Satan?

[Randy Carson]

This is the point where Catholics have most seriously deluded themselves, in my opinion.  You think it's not an idol because you pretend not to worship it?  And do you really think you're not worshiping Mary when you're praying to her to take your prayer to Jesus to take your prayer to the big guy?  And that is, by the way, the DUMBEST notion ever.  You have an all powerful god at your disposal who knows your every need and desire, but you don't want to bother him.  He has so much to do already.  So you talk to the mother of his child and ask HER to talk to him for you, a conversation, by the way, which he hears anyway being all-knowing and all.

You clearly have no understanding of the Communion of the Saints. Scripture says that the prayer of a "righteous man availeth much". And who was ever more righteous than Mary who never sinned? So, we ask the saints in heaven to pray for us because they are already in God's presence, and their prayers are powerful and effective.

Now, can I pray to God? Sure. I can, should and do. But I grow tired, my mind is distracted, and I fall asleep. Not so with the saints. They can pray without ceasing.

Finally, Jesus said, "Whatever two of you agree to ask in my name...". Well, I'm one person and the saint I ask for assistance is the second. We agree to ask in His name.

Is any of this sinking in? I hope so, because it is rock-solid based on scripture and simple logic.

And if you REALLY don't think Catholics worship idols, just take a look at your history.  Even recent history will do.  Go visit any holy relic. 

I don't have to go anywhere. I have two in my home. But continue.

Do you know where you'll find it?  Under lock and key.  It wasn't always this way.  Why is it now? 

Because someone might steal it? Or some sick, atheist might try to desecrate it?

Well, for one reason there's a wooden cup somewhere under lock and key which is heavily damaged.  They used to let the public drink out of it, but they found that people hoping for healings or miracles were biting bits of the cup off and swallowing them.  They were hoping that by ingesting bits of this holy relic they would be healed.  Think about that.  Did they REALLY expect God to better hear their prayers if they fucked up his favorite cup?  No.  What they really expected was that by taking a piece of this holy relic inside themselves they would, in essence, be eating divinity; that divinity would become a part of them, flowing through their veins.  And how would it get there?  Not by the power of prayers to dead people.  No, it was through the power of biting off a piece of an idol they worshiped and making it a part of themselves.

I've been in a lot of churches in a lot of countries. I've never seen such a cup and I've never even heard such a tale. A Google search of this concept came up empty.

You can deliver all the excuses you want, but they all ring hollow.  If you think your religion does not practice idol worship you are just deluded.  Catholics flock to idols they call "holy relics" and, if given the chance, will destroy that idol in its worship, hoping to get some miracle directly from the tangible object of their worship.  I realize that as a Catholic you see this differently, but back in reality there simply is no other explanation for why a populace would destroy a holy relic to take pieces of it with them except that they value the object itself as a source of divinity even more than any god they might anger in the destruction and desecration of that object.  The Catholic religion is so deeply steeped in idolatry that even the dead are made into idols, and I'm not just talking about the fucked-up corpse-hoarding.  I'm talking about the very mental images of past popes, saints, Mary, etc.  You've made statues of Mary to help you visualize her and you very much worship, not the statue itself, but the mental image of Mary.  It has gotten to the point where Catholics can no longer wait the prescribed amount of time for the deceased to be idolized, demanding that repeated recent fast-tracking of popular figures such as Pope John Paul and Mother Theresa.  So important to the Catholic religion are these mental idols that the rules must be set aside to make them "official" idols of the church.

Catholics do not worship Mary; we honor and venerate her. But then, scripture says:

Luke 1:46-49
46 And Mary said:

“My soul glorifies the Lord
47     and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has been mindful
    of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49     for the Mighty One has done great things for meâ€"
    holy is his name.

So, all generations will call her blessed. And there's more.

Jesus was a good Jew who obeyed the Law of Moses perfectly, and a key component of the Law is known as the Ten Commandments. The first commandment that deals with our relationships with others states, “Honor your Father and Mother.”

As a dutiful Jewish son who obeyed the law perfectly, Jesus fulfilled this commandment by honoring His Mother. The Hebrew word for “honor” actually means “glorify”. So, Jesus bestows glory on his mother, Mary.

At the annunciation, the angel of the Lord called Mary “full of grace”. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God declares that “from now on all generations will call [Mary] blessed”. Consequently, we honor Jesus’ mother in our own generation.

The Catholic Church was not the first to honor and glorify Mary - Jesus was. We simply obey the word of God which calls us to "be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly beloved children." (Ephesians 5:1)

And that leads me to the nail in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned, for the idol worship.  There are more "miracles" associated with saints and popes than there ever were where God, alone, got the credit.  From the Catholic church and ONLY the Catholic church (with the minor exception of a few cults here and there...not a joke, I'm being serious) religious people attribute miracles ONLY to God.  With the Catholic church, however, it is FAR more common to attribute miracles to some saint or pope.  How many people has John Paul healed?  How many people have seen the Virgin Mary?

I could provide you with some documentation on the healings performed by John Paul II if you like.

But I think I need to direct you to scripture again.

The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life:

2 Kings 13:20-21
So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.

This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!

Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). Even more interesting is the evidence of "second-class" relics of Paul:

Acts 19:11-12
"And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them"

If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are?

In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.

Now, I'm sure you can explain away all of this.  All learned Catholics have bothered to learn how to disguise their ignorance as "knowledge" and how to reject any reality which doesn't equal, "I win!"  But reality is reality, just the same.

There you go again...saying I will "explain it away". Well, I have explained Catholic doctrine, belief and devotion and I have given you scriptural support for our faith.

So, yeah, I have explained away your errors. They have vanished like a fart in the wind.

[Randy Carson]

Randy is about as likely to see the problems with praying to idols as a Calvinist is to see the issues with pre-destination and free will existing simultaneously.

Please show me my error in the following (you can ask widdershins for help - he claims expertise in all things Catholic):


Praying to Saints and the Communion of Saints Proved from Scripture

1. Every Christian is a member of the Body of Christ

“Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” (Romans 12:4-5)

“The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one bodyâ€"whether Jews or Greeks, slave or freeâ€"and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

2. We are joined with Christ through baptism

“having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:12)

“We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Romans 6:4)

“for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Galatians 3:27)

3. All Christians are connected through the Body of Christ

“If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.”(1 Corinthians 12:26)

“If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you” (2 Corinthians 2:5)

4. Physical death does not separate us from the Body of Christ

“For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39)

5. There is only one Body of Christ in Heaven and on Earth

“by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.” (Ephesians 2:15-16)

“There is one body and one Spiritâ€"just as you were called to one hope when you were calledâ€"one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:4-5)

6. The Church is the Body of Christ

“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” (Ephesians 1:22-23)

“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy” (Colossians 1:18)

7. Just as we can pray for one another, we can suffer for one another because we are all connected in Christ.

“Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. (Colossians 1:24)

8. If you can ask a member of the Body of Christ on earth to pray for you, then you can also ask someone who is a member of that same Body of Christ in heaven to do the same for they are not “dead” at all.

“He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." (Luke 20:38)

[Mike Cl]

Satan?

You got the letters correct, but the proper name is Santa.  He always knows if you are naughty or nice.  And he records everything you say--even if it is to a burning bush.

[Randy Carson]

Look, you little fuck wit, I'm all out of patience with your willful ignorance. The verse that needed context, which I provided and you did not, was John 7 which you presented as evidence for Jesus being born in Bethlehem when it is in fact someone objecting that he was not.
Mark says nothing about Jesus being from Bethlehem.
John presents someone saying Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and does not refute the claim.
Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem (until Jesus in perhaps as old as 2), fleeing to Egypt and only going to Nazareth after.
Luke starts with them in Nazareth, traveling to Bethlehem then going back to Nazareth by way of Jerusalem.

If you treat these four accounts as independent eye witnesses--which you have repeatedly said that they are--they clearly disagree. Mark say nothing about a Bethlehem birth while John only mentions it as a denial. Matthew says nothing about a census or living in Nazareth before Jesus' birth. Luke says nothing about Egypt or the slaughter of the innocents--a shit job for someone  "investigated everything from the beginning". You can close your eyes and pretend the contradictions don't exist, but it does not make it so.

John 7:40-44
40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”

41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.”

Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44 Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.

I have already shown how Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that he was of the line of David. So, Jesus did come from Bethlehem then to Nazareth, then Capernaum.

I know this is disappointing to see it explained in black and white to lose face in front of all your forum homers, but there it is.

Jesus is from Bethlehem and from Nazareth and from Capernaum at various times in his life.

And there is no contradiction in the gospels on this account.

Randy 2, Atheist O

Would you like to play again?

[Randy Carson]

There were other Infancy Gospels that were popular for a time.  So the revised Synoptics had to mention the infancy, childhood and presence in Egypt, to compete with the Isis/Horus narrative.

Rubbish.

[Randy Carson]

While there are undoubtedly some historically accurate bits (been verified via archaeological evidence outside of the sales brochure; aka Bible) in both the testaments......................so what. 

Welcome to the discussion, Flanker1Six. First time we've chatted, eh?

I appreciate your recognition of these historically accurate bits...though this will not make you very popular among the unthinking mythicists in this forum. But you ask, so what? Well, if the gospels can be demonstrated to be historically reliable and if the writers themselves can be judged to be honest men who wanted to convey accurate accounts, then we ought to listen more closely to what they tell us giving them the benefit of the doubt because they have earned our trust by being truthful in those things we can and have verified archaeologically and otherwise.

There are no direct credible witnesses to any of these ancient events alive today to testify to their authenticity.

Agreed. This is like investigating a cold-case murder after all the witnesses have died. All we have is indirect evidence.

There is little credible non christian documentary evidence to establish the validity of new testament claims.

I disagree and I started a whole thread on this topic. Athesists like Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill disagree with you also.

There is no credible physical evidence of many-most new testament claims i.e. unbroken chain residency records establishing Jesus parents (whatever their real names were)  lived at 5150 Hillel Street, Nazareth, PL from CE -5 to CE 1  etc

You have me there. All I have are three independent eyewitness accounts dating from the mid-late first century that say that they lived there.

christianity is a belief system; aka faith based on beliefs not founded on any reality. 

Incorrect. Unlike other religions such as Buddhism, Chrisitianity is NOT a belief system. It is rooted in a historical event, the resurrection of Jesus. If that did not occur, then whatever else we may believe about Jesus or his teachings is meaningless. Conversely, no one cares what happened to Buddha; followers are focused on his teachings. This is the difference.

My late brother was a near life long schizophrenic who during many periods  maintained he was an alien; receiving instructions from "the other aliens" in another galaxy via several pieces of the household furniture.   He could go on at length about a great variety of subjects that if the rest of us were only smart enough to listen to him; our lives would be much better.  One Doctor asked my brother why none of the rest of us were ever getting these vitally important life changing alien coms?   My brother became righteously indignant, and replied he was the only one who had the special alien ability to receive them. HAH!  Gotcha!  To all outside observation; he genuinely believed that silly shit.  To this date no one has stepped up to try and convert any others to his beliefs.  Go figure. 

That is a belief system not that different from any superstition.....................oh say christianity., islam, and any of that other stupid shit.  They all have their own circular internal logic that can not be "reasoned" with as it is not reasonable, but a "belief". 

I am sorry to hear that you brother struggled with this. Let me ask one question as an aside: Based on your knowledge of your brother's condition as well as your understanding of what Jesus taught as found in the gospels, do you think Jesus spoke as a lunatic might speak? Just curious, and thanks.

Throw in the fact the bible is only half christian, and half coopted from another superstition (interestingly both groups believe they're special because of their beliefs); has been edited by "god only knows" how many people over the centuries to say whatever their interpretation of what the previous version/s said........................and there you have it...........................a sales brochure.  Of course it's true/happened...................says so raht here! 

I have not appealed to scripture as inspired - merely as reliable as you yourself noted in the first part of your post. If you think there are flaws in the arguments for the reliability presented in the OP, please show them to me. Again, thanks.

A few years ago; whilst in Jerusalem (the one in Israel) I took a guided tour of the Old City, which concentrated on the sites, acts, and final days of good 'ol Jesus (tour guide was jewish).  While we were following the seven stations of the cross.................one of them was "the spot" in an alleyway where Jesus became so physically debilitated (what with the beatings, scourgings, trials, mockery, and all) he stumbled and fell under the weight of the cross.  Our tour guide pointed out the very spot on the alley way wall (next to a door way) where Jesus placed his out flung hand to steady himself.  Fortunately for us on the tour......................there had been a half spherical glob of fresh cement on that wall for Jesus to leave his "actual" hand print for us to gaze in wonder at some 2000 years later!   I "SWEAR BEFORE YEE ALL", it was so convincing and inspirational.....................I almost re-signed up for the whole program right then and there.  I actually burst out laughing, and said something rather unchristianly (pretty much frosting off the other more enraptured tour members) expressing a slight note of disbelief that there just happened to be a glob of wet cement on the wall 2000 years ago for Jesus to steady himself in?  The tour guide smiled, shrugged her shoulders, and says, "Aahhh; it's part of the tour", then turned and walked on to the next station of the cross.  LOL! 

There are three points to make here.

1. The early church knew where things like this occurred: where he was born, where he died, etc. Knowing the locations where Jesus fell is not beyond the pale.
2. If the hand print was merely a marker to show where Jesus fell, then, okay, that's useful to some degree...but not if false claims are being made about it.
3. If the tour guide seriously suggested that the hand print was made by Jesus, then she's a charlatan. Catholics are pretty big on the stations of the cross (there are 14 not 7, btw), so if a genuine hand print was thought to exist, we would know about it.

The historical reliability of the new testament?  You're best off getting such an assessment from a trained multi discipline historical researcher who is most definitely not a christian.

I can go one better. I have an atheist, Bart Ehrman, a serious NT scholar who acknowledges that Jesus really existed and that the gospels provide reliable information about him.

[Poison Tree]

I have already shown how Jesus was born in Bethlehem

Not using the book of John, because it and Mark don't say that. That you had to change from one so-called independent reliable eye witness account to another to find a different answer is the point. If you take each independent reliable eye witness account and line they up they have glaring contradictions. That you have to cut and past pieces from each leaving be hind chunks of each narrative in order to form a coherent narrative is exactly the point.

[sdelsolray]

I have already shown how Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that he was of the line of David. So, Jesus did come from Bethlehem then to Nazareth, then Capernaum.

I know this is disappointing to see it explained in black and white to lose face in front of all your forum homers, but there it is.

Jesus is from Bethlehem and from Nazareth and from Capernaum at various times in his life.

And there is no contradiction in the gospels on this account.

Randy 2, Atheist O

Would you like to play again?

You lie to yourself, and to others.

[Baruch]

Much of the Bible text is quite like common fictional writing.  Jesus goes into the desert (alone), meets up with Satan (that makes two), and somehow the event is written down in detail by someone else.  How did the author observe these events?  How were the private conversations recorded?

Gollum, in scenes all by himself, talks with himself.  The conversations are written down verbatim in Lord of the Rings.  Who observed these conversations?  Who wrote them down?

The simple answer is that both situations were "observed" by and written by an author of fiction.  In the later case it was JRR Tolkien.  In the former no one knows.

The Narrator in both cases, often a narrator who is "off scene".  Of course with the Judean Desert temptation (and people then knew that demons lived in the desert, not in Herod's or Caesar's palace) that would be G-d of course, and G-d wrote the NT, the apostles and writers were mere puppets of an all powerful G-d (not).

[sdelsolray]

The Narrator in both cases, often a narrator who is "off scene".  Of course with the Judean Desert temptation (and people then knew that demons lived in the desert, not in Herod's or Caesar's palace) that would be G-d of course, and G-d wrote the NT, the apostles and writers were mere puppets of an all powerful G-d (not).

How convenient.  Just not in any way they can demonstrate, hence new fiction from lazy cowards.

[Baruch]

How convenient.  Just not in any way they can demonstrate, hence new fiction from lazy cowards.

They have had a lot of centuries to practice this same shuck and jive.

[Baruch]

I wish the Church were the body of Christ, but in my personal experience it is the body of Constantine.  And for me, Christ is a sectarian claim, and thus too limited to be real.  G-d includes all or none.

[Baruch]

The whole point of playing a game, is to cheat, or use your authority to guarantee your win.  The card deck is marked, and if that isn't enough, follow the leader is added on as a new rule.  Winning is everything ... to losers.

[widdershins]

You cannot withstand MY arguments and refutations of yours because you have pre-decided what you believe about God without being willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. You're just taking your bat and ball and going home.

YOUR arguments are little more than, "I am right!  This is FACT!  I win!"  You're just pissed that one more person refused to play your childish games any more.  And that's what this is for you.  It's a childish game of "Prove me wrong" where you want us blindfolded so we can't see you knocking the goalpost over altogether.  We don't have to prove you wrong.  YOU have to prove you right.  Cast a fucking spell and prove magic is real already or fuck off.