Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[reasonist]

Baruch, as a Jew do you accept the NT and the divinity of Jesus?

I am not a mystic but belief in spirituality (non religious) as long as I can differentiate between the numinous and the supernatural.
I am not Jewish but lost most of my family in WWII. Every male in my family (6) were killed in Russia for absolutely nothing. So I feel with you and your tribe especially now during Yom HaShoa.

[Randy Carson]

Since the question is whether or not Jesus claimed to be divine, someone else recording his words would not be the original source.

Jesus is the source of the words. The autographs of the gospels are the original sources of those accounts which recorded those words. But I think we are in sync.

If I were to create my own religious text, I would claim it to be from someone else who directly experienced the miraculous events I write about.

Yes!

Someone like a disciple of the religious leader.

Yes!

And if I could make up a transformation story about how this hated tax collector became a holy man, that'd make my religion seem all the more exciting.

Yes!

Except that there is actually almost nothing the the gospels about Matthew's growth in holiness. Peter, James and John, sure. But Matthew? And here is the bigger problem:

Suppose you wrote a book about the current political and economic situation in the United States. In the book you laid out your vision for what steps we need to take as a nation in order to turn things around and get them moving in the right direction. Then you publish the book under the name of "Ted Cruz" and try to sell it at a Donald Trump rally? Do you see a potential problem here? Is there any reason to think that you might not sell too many copies of the book?

The Romans occupied Israel, and the Jews HATED them. They were pagans. They imposed taxes. And they openly mocked these unsophisticated, bronze-age, goat herders and their silly superstitions about "one god". The Jews also hated those who collaborated with the Romans - like the tax collectors. Every watch a documentary about what happened to people who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. When France was liberated, it did not go well for those women who had taken German lovers. The men who collaborated were shot.

So, if you're trying to sell a book about Jesus (who already had a bad rap having been hung on a tree which was proof of being cursed by God according to scripture), and you want to sell it in the greater Jerusalem metropolitan area, claiming that it was authored by a Roman collaborator on the dust jacket was not a smart marketing strategy.

If I claimed to be an eyewitness myself, then I would have to prove my credibility.

Yes!

Which is why there are explicit statements to this effect from Luke, John and Peter. And why we need to verify these statements for ourselves.

But if I "found" a letter from Paul, who are they to question such an important leader of the church?

Yes!

Provided you could prove that it was actually from Paul, of course.

Believe it or not, Christians wouldn't be the first to lie to create their religious documents. I don't believe Islamic texts just because "hey, these copies are the same, so we must know what the original author wrote!"

Of course not. The existence of accurate texts means nothing. However, without accurate texts we have nothing to discuss. They are a pre-requisite.

And as this thread seeks to explain, the texts must have been written early enough to have been authored by eyewitnesses before they all died out.

The texts are reliable. They were written early.

You are painfully naive.

Really? You know this or you are assuming it because my beliefs differ from yours and it is convenient to dismiss me?

If J. Warner Wallace was convinced so easily, that's his problem.

Yeah, because no true atheist would ever convert, right?

Eyewitness testimony has long been known to be an EXTREMELY unreliable source of information. Not only that, but we don't have eyewitnesses to go by.

Your first point is absurd. We rely on eyewitnesses EVERY day. Your second point is irrelevant. We have indirect testimony from the eyewitnesses who wrote them. This type of evidence is just as valid in a court of law as direct evidence.

We have copies of copies of copies of documents SUPPOSEDLY written by eyewitnesses.

Yep. And using the methodology of textual criticism (discussed in another thread), we can reconstruct the original texts with a high degree of accuracy.

Not only that, but we have copies of copies of documents supposedly written by eyewitnesses of SUPERNATURAL EVENTS. I'd sooner trust someone who claimed to have been abducted by an alien spacecraft. At least then I know who the original source of the information is.

So, now we come to the heart of the matter.

If we have accurate texts written by men who can be shown to be reliable by careful examination of the details included in their accounts and to have been corroborated by non-Christian sources, then we are faced with the question of what to do with their claims.

Were they lying? Did they actually believe what they wrote? What accounts for the fact that otherwise sober, honest men make an otherwise unbelievable claim of supernatural events?

Or they are people who copied down stories passed down verbally to them.

Mark and Luke did. Accurately. We can test this.

Or they are people who forged those documents. We have no reason to believe the authors are who they are claimed to be.

You mean other than two facts:

1. The earliest sources ascribe the books to the traditional authors, and
2. There is no competing list of candidates who might have written them?

Jesus two genealogy accounts claim two different fathers for Joseph. (Contrary to what apologists say, Luke specifically states the his genealogy is from Joseph's side of the family in 3:23.)

Really? What if Joseph had two fathers as a result of Levirate marriage requirements?

Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, while Luke said that he was born during the first census of Israel after Quirinius became governor, which happened 10 years AFTER Herod died.

Luke claims that Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born there, but Matthew says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem THEN Joseph and Mary moved to Nazareth. Both authors jumped through hoops to put Jesus in Bethlehem, even inventing the ridiculous claim that the census required everyone to travel to their original home town. The point of a census is to count numbers, not to keep record of where everyone was born. And even if they needed that information, it would have been less expensive just to ASK.

In John 1:29, John the Baptist declares who Jesus is as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" just before Baptising Jesus for the beginning of his ministry. But later, when he's thrown into prison in the book of Luke, John sends some of his men to Jesus to ask, "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?" I guess watching God descend on Jesus head like a dove wasn't a clear enough message for John... Or, you know, both stories, written by different men, were made up.

The first three gospel books claim that the Last Supper took place on the day of the Passover, while the book of John says that the Last Supper was the day before the Passover and that Jesus was crucified the day of the Passover.

Matthew 27:7 says the priests bought the potter's field while Acts 1:18 says that Judas bought it. Matthew 27:5 says that Judas hung himself out of grief. Acts 1:18 says that Judas tripped and accidentally disemboweled himself with a sharp rock.

After seeing the angel at Jesus' empty tomb, Mary simultaneously tells no one about it out of fear (Mark 16:8) and immediately ran to tell the eleven disciples about what she found (every other account).

No sign shall be given to this generation (Mark 8:12), but many people followed Jesus because of the miracles he performed (John 6:2).

The disciples are instructed both to take a staff (Mark 6:8) and not to take a staff (Matthew 10:9-10).

Oh...stump the apologist, eh?

Okay, but not in this thread. Start your own.

[Randy Carson]

Yawn ... I see nothing new is happening.  Randy ... you need to try harder, without repeating yourself.

"Reliable men tell us what they know to be true, and we can accept their testimonies. This is a basic philosophical truth." ... there are no reliable men. 

Can we rely on Einstein to teach us about relativity? What about Stephen Hawking to explain black holes? Or Francis Collins to discuss the human genome?

Oh, wait...Collins became a Christian which PROVES he's an idiot...

I am not sure G-d is reliable (pretty sure G-d is not).  Greeks and Irish think that words are true.  Zen knows that words are powerless.  Testimonies ... again ... speaks to primitive trial situations.  Old Roman trials asked ... Qui Bono.  Who benefits?  Well the Roman Emperor and the "orthodox/catholic" clergy who become civil servants ... benefit.  But no miracles please ... you only discredit yourself.  Any real Jesus ... was clinically psycho.  That does work in your favor, because I feel that G-d is real, but psycho.

Ah. So, Jesus was a Lunatic who merely claimed to be God?

And how did the apostles benefit from their claim that Jesus was alive? What was their motivation?

Did they genuinely believe it to be true? Or were they lying?

[Randy Carson]

That's an easy one. To list them all would take a couple of weeks to write and for you to read. Here are a couple of obvious ones
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.

Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.
Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).

According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:
There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.
By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament.

a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.
b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.

Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.

It's a start. Something to ponder for our resident apologist.

1. My request was directed to Unbeliever. Let him have a chance.
2. If you REALLY need these issues addressed, start your own thread.
3. If I do address them, what will that prove? Will you concede that Jesus rose from the dead at that point? Or will you merely dredge up another list?

IOW, at what point will you concede that I have successfully defended the New Testament? Without a clear path to victory, why should I play your game?

[Randy Carson]

"Either you can appreciate the beauty of the prose or you cannot.
However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the dating of the gospels which is the topic of this thread".

It's wonderful poetry, no doubt. So is Shakespeare, Larkin, Dunne, and thousands others. Without silly claims pretending to be facts. At least we KNOW the authors also. The bible has beautiful passages of poetry and hundreds of pages of complete garbage and nonsense.

Yes. And none of the authors you listed were simpletons. My point is made.

Thanks.

[Randy Carson]

Actually, it was 666, but some writers knew what the original author meant and tried to correct it for their general audience. Back then, letters and numbers were the same. You could take someone's name and "calculate" what the number is. What name happens to add up to 666? Neron Caesar. That was what the Hebrew speakers called Nero Caesar. But since most of their growing numbers were not Hebrews, some copiers of the manuscripts changed it to 616 so that it would be the number that corresponds to Caesar's more common name.

<sigh>

Now, I got my information from a talk on YouTube by one of the world's leading experts on ancient biblical manuscripts, Dr. Daniel Wallace. But you won't bother to listen to him - not because he's wrong - but because he's a Christian. So, you can get the confirmation you need of what I already told you here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/616_(number)

While 666 is called the "number of the beast" in most manuscripts of Revelation 13:18,[1] a fragment of papyrus 115 gives the number as 616.

[reasonist]

"1. My request was directed to Unbeliever. Let him have a chance.
2. If you REALLY need these issues addressed, start your own thread.
3. If I do address them, what will that prove? Will you concede that Jesus rose from the dead at that point? Or will you merely dredge up another list?"

Are you telling me where and when I can post? LOL Try again...
What have the contradictions I listed to do with Jesus rising from the dead? The point is just that: there is so much nonsense and contradictions in your book that the claim of resurrection is just another fallacy. Do you personally KNOW people who rose from the dead? Please share.

"IOW, at what point will you concede that I have successfully defended the New Testament? Without a clear path to victory, why should I play your game?"

You are joking, I know. It's OK, I have the faculty of humor. FACT is that you not only have proven nothing but exposed your ignorance.

[Randy Carson]

Your arguments are crystal clear--and they are opinions and they are circular.  But that does make sense for the scales that rest upon your eyes are circular and are very heavy--I doubt you will ever remove them.  Tis a pity.

If my arguments are crystal clear and circular, you should have no problem illustrating this.

Please show me.

[Baruch]

<sigh>

Now, I got my information from a talk on YouTube by one of the world's leading experts on ancient biblical manuscripts, Dr. Daniel Wallace. But you won't bother to listen to him - not because he's wrong - but because he's a Christian. So, you can get the confirmation you need of what I already told you here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/616_(number)

I trust what experiments show about that scrap ... not what Einstein or Hawking say about it.

That proves that scraps of papyrus exist (as is already known).  Also that in handwriting study, and carbon dating, it can be approximately dated.  Doesn't prove people arising from the dead, or any Jewish or Universal messiah.  But it is amazing what bits and pieces survive from centuries ago.

[Randy Carson]

"Aside from the brilliant theology of Paul or the poetry of the Psalms which both require a true talent, I offer this well-known passage which many people regard as among the most beautiful ever written"

Very nice...and now maybe you could offer us that single word I was challenging you about. Just one word that could have NOT been written by bronze age simpletons but could ONLY come from a divine source.
Thank you

How could we know that God is a trinity if He had not revealed it to us? How could we have discovered it on our own?

[Randy Carson]

"1. My request was directed to Unbeliever. Let him have a chance.
2. If you REALLY need these issues addressed, start your own thread.
3. If I do address them, what will that prove? Will you concede that Jesus rose from the dead at that point? Or will you merely dredge up another list?"

Are you telling me where and when I can post? LOL Try again...
What have the contradictions I listed to do with Jesus rising from the dead? The point is just that: there is so much nonsense and contradictions in your book that the claim of resurrection is just another fallacy. Do you personally KNOW people who rose from the dead? Please share.

"IOW, at what point will you concede that I have successfully defended the New Testament? Without a clear path to victory, why should I play your game?"

You are joking, I know. It's OK, I have the faculty of humor. FACT is that you not only have proven nothing but exposed your ignorance.

[Baruch]

Christian innumeracy ;-)  Also in Kabbalah we know that G-d has 10 parts, as is shown by my ten fingers/thumbs.  That trumps St Patrick with the shamrock.

[Randy Carson]

I trust what experiments show about that scrap ... not what Einstein or Hawking say about it.

That proves that scraps of papyrus exist (as is already known).  Also that in handwriting study, and carbon dating, it can be approximately dated.  Doesn't prove people arising from the dead, or any Jewish or Universal messiah.  But it is amazing what bits and pieces survive from centuries ago.

Indeed. This scrap is simply one that shows that the number is 616 and not 616 - possibly.

Studying these scraps and those which are much larger, of course, is how we arrive at an accurate text for the NT.

[Randy Carson]

Christian innumeracy ;-)  Also in Kabbalah we know that G-d has 10 parts, as is shown by my ten fingers/thumbs.  That trumps St Patrick with the shamrock.

God has no parts. He is simple (as in "not complex").

[reasonist]

How could we know that God is a trinity if He had not revealed it to us? How could we have discovered it on our own?

Phew! Why didn't I think of that? LOL You KNOW that there is a god and he is a trinity, including a ghost.
I was asking you for a (ONE) word that could not have been written by mortals like you and I. No dice?????

Maybe if you get your head out of your arse, you will understand the question.