Are the Gospels reliable?

Page 1 of 111234>Last »
March 3rd, 2018 at 5:26:55 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Wanted to start a new thread where Evenbob, myself, and hopefully others can dialogue about this important question. I'll try to make a good and thought out post here soon. Thanks!
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
March 3rd, 2018 at 5:34:47 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
My pre-Wikipedia response:
Gospels? Ain't they songs?

Here is my Post-Wikipedia response:
The four gospels of the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — are the main source of information on the life of Jesus.[4] For various reasons modern scholars are cautious of relying on them uncritically, but nevertheless they do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later authors.

I guess I'll check in from time to time but I am too much of a realist for this sort of stuff.
March 3rd, 2018 at 5:39:24 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5055
I'll participate a bit in this since you have actually invited EB. You two going at it puzzles me in many ways.

Barstool scholars like to point out that the gospels were written well after the time of Jesus, the earliest, Mark, still being thought to have been put down around 70 A.D. So we will hear this from Bob. What it ignores is that each Gospel had an oral tradition that preceded this, so it is a canard to claim that the late dates they were written mean that it was 'all made up'.
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
March 3rd, 2018 at 5:48:20 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Quote: odiousgambit
. What it ignores is that each Gospel had an oral tradition that preceded this, so it is a canard to claim that the late dates they were written mean that it was 'all made up'.
Such Oral Traditions may not have been any too factually related either. Historians did not strive for accuracy or restraint. Stories told round a campfire had to be interesting and impressive history, not accurate. Perhaps the Gospels are the Dianetics of their day?
March 3rd, 2018 at 6:02:59 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5055
Quote: Fleastiff
Such Oral Traditions may not have been any too factually related either


I think you would get scholars to agree that they resisted including anything that disagreed with what they had to say, but also resisted changing the story as they knew it. In my opinion the Cry from the Cross [Mark and Matthew] puzzled them, but they included it.
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
March 3rd, 2018 at 6:26:23 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Quote: odiousgambit
it. In my opinion the Cry from the Cross [Mark and Matthew] puzzled them, but they included it.
Well, I have no idea what this is. I've never read the Bible.
March 3rd, 2018 at 10:52:26 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Are they historically reliable? Heck
no. They are not written by eyewitnesses,
were all written decades and decades
after the events, and were all written
in a language that wasn't spoken by
the people the gospels were about,
by men who lived nowhere near that
area. At least half the books in the NT
are outright forgeries, written by god
knows who or for what reason.

So you have 4 gospels that say contradictory
things, were not written by anybody who
was there or even knew anybody who was
there. They were written from oral stories
that were told over and over and over and
over, decade after decade after decade.
They were changed and embellished, that's
why all the contradictions.

For good historical reference you need eyewitness
accounts by at least a few people who were
actually there. Not haphazard accounts
from people who heard oral stories from
believers trying to convert people who had every
reason to change the stories to get more converts.

When historians don't have reliable witness accounts,
they make educated guesses. The first thing they
always rule out is, anything of a supernatural nature.
If it can't be repeated and demonstrated today,
there's an almost 100% chance it never happened.
Cows don't fly, beanstalks don't grow into the
clouds, people can't walk on water or rise from the
dead after 3 days.

So what you have in the gospels is, no historical
proof of anything Jesus said or supposedly did.
You can make a religion out of apocryphal stories,
obviously, just as long as you realize it's not built
on facts but on faith.

Some of us need more than made up stories to
base our lives around, others of us are fine with
it. You can scream and stamp your foot all day
long that the gospels are true, but you have no
way to prove it. None. They look made up and
historians agree they probably were.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
March 3rd, 2018 at 11:01:52 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
I recently read an article about an archeology project n Uzbekistan.
As far as can be determined the authors were not eyewitnesses to the construction of towns along the silk road well over two thousand years ago and while the authors may have a smattering of modern day Uzbek they certainly were not fluent in ancient Uzbek.
March 3rd, 2018 at 11:07:23 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Thanks for participating OG and others. I think I came to the same realization about just EB and I going at each other in not very constructive ways. I think we brought out the worst in each other and when I found myself getting really upset I realized it was best to dial it down and enter into a constructive dialogue where we can hear each other out and answer questions.

Bob, you have laid out a lot of stuff in your first post here and I can respond to a few of the things you allude to. I'm working up a good response to the fundamental question as to when the Gospels were written. If you give me a little more time I am culling information from as many well known Scripture scholars as I can (yes, including Bart Ehrman). I think this will give us a better foundation to determine if eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels or how far removed eyewitnesses would be.

One thing to be consistent with is to realize that the history we get from this time period is all from written documents written after the event. All of the information we have about this period of secular history was written much, much, further removed than any of the Gospels or the NT. We seem to trust those documents and the oral tradition that gave rise to them, maybe we should do so for the more recently written and vastly more attested Gospels?

I think your information about the language people spoke at the time is wrong? The reason English is spoken so much around the world is because it is the language of trade, economy, and culture. Greek was this language at the time. I'm curious as to why you think that the people of that time did not speak Greek?
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
March 3rd, 2018 at 11:14:22 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5055
Quote: Fleastiff
Quote: odiousgambit
it. In my opinion the Cry from the Cross [Mark and Matthew] puzzled them, but they included it.
Well, I have no idea what this is. I've never read the Bible.


Jesus cried out on the cross asking why God had forsaken him, according to these Gospels, so it is called such.
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
Page 1 of 111234>Last »