Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Randy Carson]

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.

I know you want to believe that.

It's important for you to deny that Christians have evidence for the resurrection which is, in turn, evidence for the existence of God.

So, this is VITAL to you.

However, I have provided a significant amount of indirect evidence in the OP's of my posts, and you have impeached none of it.

Consequently, you have a certain amount of dissonance resulting from: 1) the gospels are historically reliable but 2) they claim that Jesus performed miracles.

How will you reconcile those two things?

[Randy Carson]

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.

There are no contradictions between the gospel accounts. There are differences in the information provided, but this information does not contradict.

I am from North Carolina, but I was born in Peoria, Illinois. So, if one person calls me Randy from Peoria and another refers to me as Randy of North Carolina, these two accounts say different things but they are not contradictory.

John and Mark say different things, but these things do not contradict.

[Randy Carson]

You lie to yourself, and to others.

Prove it.

Otherwise, you are lying.

[Randy Carson]

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

And unbelievers have had two millennia to disprove it.

I see you are still unable to do so.

[Randy Carson]

Who Wrote the Gospels?

While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.

So, who wrote the gospels? Were they written by the men whose names we traditionally associate with these works within a lifetime of Jesus? Or were they written by “schools” which formed the gospels on the basis of their own traditions many decades later?

Evangelical author Dr. Craig Blomberg answers these questions in unambiguous terms:

“It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples, was the author of the first gospel in the New Testament; that John Mark, a companion of Peter, was the author of the gospel we call Mark; and that Luke, known as Paul’s ‘beloved physician,’ wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.”

Blomberg goes on to say: “There are no known competitors for these three gospels. Apparently, it was just not in dispute.”

Dr. Mary Healy, associate professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, agrees.

“[Authorship of the gospels] is a very important question. It’s something that the Church has held consistently since the beginning is that the gospels are of apostolic origin which means that they were written either by apostles or by apostolic men â€" meaning men who were closely associated with them â€" and that’s the basis on which we have a firm confidence that the gospels really do reliably tell us who Jesus Christ was, and what he did and what he taught.”

Both Blomberg and Healy offer questions which must be answered by those who deny the traditional authorship of the gospels including:

1. Why would copies of gospels circulate anonymously all over the Roman empire for decades and then suddenly be ascribed to the authors we know today unanimously without dispute in the second century?
2. When the gospels were being read in the liturgy, how would they have been distinguished one from another if they did not have names such as “The Gospel of Mark” or “The Gospel According to Luke”?
3. Why attribute a gospel to someone who had a somewhat dubious track record (like Mark who abandoned Paul on a missionary journey) unless it was true that Mark wrote it? Or why attribute a gospel written for a Jewish audience to Matthew, a man who would have been hated as a Roman collaborator by that audience, unless it was true?

The latter question is particularly interesting today because of the popularity of “gospels” that were not included in the canon of inspired scripture. These fanciful accounts of Jesus, which were written centuries later, were commonly ascribed to more prominent members of the Early Church; thus, we have gospels according to Peter, James, Mary and Thomas among others.

Apart from these logical considerations, is there any evidence that the gospels were, in fact, written by their namesakes? The answer is yes, and here we turn to the historical writings of three ancient authors, Papias, Irenaeus and Origen.

Papias (d. ca. AD 100)

Little is known of the life of Papias. He may have been a hearer of the Apostle John and a companion of  Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John. Eusebius tells us that Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis and a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch. His writings are typically dated from about AD 95-125. In his preface, Papias states:

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the eldersâ€"what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

Having conducted his research, Papias writes the following concerning Mark:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Note that Papias states that Mark wrote accurately but not "in exact order". In other words, Papias says that Mark's gospel was somewhat disorderly. This may explain why Luke later wrote in the preface of his own gospel:

Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke acknowledges that others have written before him (that would include Mark), but while Mark's account was "disorderly", he intends for his own account to be "orderly." Thus, Luke references Papias' remarks about Mark's gospel.

Of Matthew, Papias writes:

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Irenaeus (AD 130-200)

Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons and a former disciple of Polycarp. In a brief passage, Irenaeus corroborates Papias concerning the authorship of Matthew:

"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." (Adversus Haereses 3.3.4)

Origen (AD 185-254)

"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 tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language." (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4)

From the foregoing arguments and ancient testimonies, we can conclude that the synoptic gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that these accounts were based on either direct or indirect eye-witness testimony.

+++

For those keeping score at home, I have now address four key points in the chain of evidence for the resurrection:

1. The texts of the gospels we have today are extremely accurate reconstructions of the original, inspired autograph manuscripts. We know what the authors wrote.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses. We know that the authors were present at the scene.
3. The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know that the authors were authoritative eyewitnesses.
4. The gospels were corroborated by non-biblical sources. We know that Jewish and Roman historians provide enemy attestation of key points from the gospels.

Still to come:

Are the gospel writers trustworthy? Can we believe what they wrote?

[widdershins]

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.

You can try all you want to explain it away, but your beliefs are not backed Bionically.  The Bible states that the dead are aware of nothing.  Even if they weren't, why would dying give them magical powers?  Why would they suddenly gain the magical ability to hear prayers?  Or the magical power to discern between the MILLIONS of prayers directed at them at any given time?  Why would dying give them powers traditionally assigned only to God?

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.

So your all powerful, all knowing God can't make a decision until he's had time to mull it over?  Why?  What is time to him?  What outcome could he have to consider that he hasn't known since before creation?  What decision has he made that can be undone by begging for hours, days, months?  Is his will so fickle that, if you pray long enough, he'll think, "You know what?  Maybe my plan isn't the best one after all."?  The notion that an all-powerful, all-knowing being with a "plan" could be swayed given enough time is ludicrous.

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.

Yeah, you wouldn't know "simple logic" if it molested you after choir practice.  It is "rock-solid" why?  Well, because you say it's so, of course.  Wait.  Didn't you mean, '...it is ROCK-SOLID..."?  I thought you had to capitalize it to force it to be reality.  Apparently you have only to claim it.  I'll update my copy of "Arguing According to Randy" with the new rules under the section, "Why you lost, a guide to understanding how you're wrong before you've even stated your case."

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

Do they have commercials for Catholic relics?  I imagine they would be something along the lines of the old "Pay-per-view instead of renting a disc" commercials.

"Who has time to go out and worship idols?  You have to get dressed, get in the car, drive to the nearest idol AND THEN you have to do it all again in reverse!  Yuck!  Who has time for that?  Well now you don't have to!  That's right, you can have your very own idol right in the comfort of your own home!  Be the envy of your neighborhood when you invite your friends over to show off your own, personal idol where you and your friends can kneel down and worship it for hours at a time!"

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

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.

Lol, why the fuck would I go anywhere near the creepy body parts you freaks collect?  And I suppose because you've never heard of the Nanteos Cup that means I just made the whole thing up?  I thought you were an intelligent, informed Catholic.  Why is it this lowly, stupid atheist knows the history of the Nanteos Cup, but you have never heard such a thing?  More importantly, why is it you simply assume that I am a threat to your holy relics, which I care nothing about, and are blissfully unaware that it is actually CHRISTIANS who are the biggest danger to the integrity of these relics?  Oh wise and learned Catholic, please teach me the wisdom of your ways by telling me which knowledge I must forget to become as wise and learned as you!

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

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.”

Actually no, it isn't.  That isn't one of the "Ten Commandments".  It at least wasn't one of the Ten written on the stone tablets.  Read Exodus 34.  It is the ONLY place in the Bible where both the "stone tablets" are mentioned and the phrase "Ten Commandments" is used.  It is the ONLY place in the Bible which specifically states what was written on the stone tablets, in this case the replacement tablets which Moses had to chisel.  I think we can all agree that it's safe to assume that Moses was instructed to put the same "Ten Commandments" on the new tablets which were on the old tablets.  That being the case, the ten you know, they're not the ten from the tablets.  They are not THE Ten Commandments.  Essentially they're only ten OTHER commandments.

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.

Apparently "honor" means "pray to"?  I've been doing it wrong for MLK all these years?  Boy, is my face red!

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)

Yeah, but BEFORE she was dead.  Not exactly the same thing.

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

Oh, I am actually familiar.  I am also familiar with the lack of medical backing for the claims, and the fact that the symptoms later returned.

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

No, you really don't.  The scriptures are so vague and contradictory you can use them to justify any position.  I could use them to justify slavery and polygamy right now, no problem.

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

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

Well, if your standard for "Biblical proof" of a belief is ONE EXAMPLE then I can prove a LOT of things you don't want to hear.

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:

Wait, LIVING people can be relics too?  You fuckers can turn ANYTHING into an idol!  Hey, I have petrified shit from the donkey that carried Mary on the way to pay their taxes when Jesus was born!  Now, it may LOOK like just ordinary shit, but that's because, through the miracle of idolatry, it just hasn't decayed!  Send me your info and I'll give you a price!

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

Since you asked, there are PLENTY of examples of relics and the examples given above ain't two.  A "relic" is an object surviving from "an earlier time".  Living Jesus was not a relic.  Peter's shadow wasn't even an object.  Well, maybe in Neverland, but this isn't the story of Peter Pan.

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.

A shadow is a "physical thing"?  Where is Peter's shadow now?  Do you have it in a jar in your bedroom?  A little something to worship in the middle of the night when you need a quick fix, maybe?

"Do you hate getting out of bed to worship idols?  Sure.  We all do..."

So quick question, Einstein.  Why can't these idols, plentiful as they are, do these things today?  Why is it that the only magic they can muster is magic that can't be objectively observed?

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.

My errors, huh?  Because I'm the uninformed one here.  I'm the one that has never heard of the Nanteos Cup and simply not skilled enough (or tried hard not) to find information about it.  You know, I couldn't remember what it was called at first.  I had to Google it.  Unlike you, however, I spent the 3 minutes (yes, that IS literal) it took to refine my search until I came up with what I was looking for.

Proclaiming it's true doesn't make it true.  Quoting the Bible to explain away WHY your idolatry is okay does not make it not idolatry.  Quoting the Bible to show WHY your repetitive prayers, which have become SO repetitive to you over the years that you could do them while thinking heavily about the game last night, are exactly how you are supposed to pray doesn't make them not so repetitive that you can do them on autopilot.  It also doesn't negate the fact that it actually takes more thought to keep track of how many times you've said a Hail Mary than it does to actually SAY the Hail Mary.  It doesn't change the fact that you can say these prayers on autopilot, the very essence of "repetitive", and you're more likely to lose count than you are to screw up.

You really are full of pride and arrogance.  Not to mention outright stupidity, albeit a willful stupidity.  I can quote the Bible all day long to show why you're wrong just like you can quote it all day long to show why I'm wrong.  Why is that?  Because it's meaningless "babble" which can say anything you want it to, which should answer your question about why people here are misspelling "Bible".

[Randy Carson]

You can try all you want to explain it away, but your beliefs are not backed Bionically.  The Bible states that the dead are aware of nothing. 

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

[Randy Carson]

Actually no, it isn't.  That isn't one of the "Ten Commandments".  It at least wasn't one of the Ten written on the stone tablets.  Read Exodus 34. 

The Ten Commandments are contained in Exodus 20.

Exodus 20:1-17

20 And God spoke all these words:

2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

[Randy Carson]

Yeah, but BEFORE she was dead.  Not exactly the same thing.

Mary is not dead now. None of the saints are.

Mark 12:27
"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

[Blackleaf]

ANOTHER thread for this? Come on.

[Randy Carson]

No, you really don't.  The scriptures are so vague and contradictory you can use them to justify any position.  I could use them to justify slavery and polygamy right now, no problem.

So, why do you try to use the scriptures to justify your false idea that Catholics worship statues and dead saints? Or that honoring your father and mother are NOT one of the 10 commandments?

Could you at least TRY to be consistent?

[widdershins]

Who Wrote the Gospels?

While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.

This is not true.  This is not indisputable.  Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.  Eyewitness accounts which include observations of magic are never taken at face value.  I very much dispute this.  It is very much not indisputable.  It is, in fact, very disputed.

It's also a loaded statement, a sly attempt to manipulate the argument.  The term "eyewitness account" only applies to witnesses of actual events.  You are trying to prove that the statements in the New Testament are real by getting us to, before the argument begins, accept that the accounts in the New Testament are real and build your argument from a position of "I win!"  Not going to happen.

Rewrite this.  Replace "eyewitness accounts" with something which DOES NOT start the argument with the assertion that you've won the argument before you've even given it.  Form a proper argument and I'll read the rest.

[Randy Carson]

You really are full of pride and arrogance.  Not to mention outright stupidity, albeit a willful stupidity.  I can quote the Bible all day long to show why you're wrong just like you can quote it all day long to show why I'm wrong.  Why is that?  Because it's meaningless "babble" which can say anything you want it to, which should answer your question about why people here are misspelling "Bible".

You have been badly misinformed about basic Christian doctrine and the contents of scripture, and I suspect it will be quite some time before you are able to approach the scriptures or a book of basic Christian theology calmly enough to evaluate it objectively.

[reasonist]

ANOTHER thread for this? Come on.

He'll keep playing with you as long as you reply. I am amazed how many intelligent posters here keep giving this idiot some attention.

[Blackleaf]

Mary is not dead now. None of the saints are.

Mark 12:27
"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

Oh, really? Can we go visit them, then? Have a little talk with Mary over a cup of coffee and talk about her son?