Are the Gospels reliable?
March 6th, 2018 at 6:31:02 AM permalink | |
FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 | Thanks OG. I do think the only way one loses their faith is to try to hold the Sunday School version as an adult. I found interesting Evenbob's video, which of course is an excerpt from a debate. We don't get the other side, but when pushed Dr. Ehrman will admit if asked what he believes these lost original autographs would say that they would say pretty much what we have today. These differences he makes a big deal of are spelling errors or word choice kind of things. So this is another sense of reliable we have. I know some positions haven't changed but I hold out hope that anyone can see that while not perfect the Gospels are reliable to the original text and the original author's intent and content. You don't have to believe it but it is reliable in the sense we are discussing. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
March 7th, 2018 at 6:54:51 AM permalink | |
FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 | Here is a good response to the video Evenbob posted earlier. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
March 7th, 2018 at 7:44:37 AM permalink | |
pew Member since: Jan 8, 2013 Threads: 4 Posts: 1232 | It all comes down to one thing which is whether God is an actuality. If God is true the argument is, does the Holy Spirit have the power to maintain continuity in the scriptures? The answer to which is an obvious one. On the other hand if there is no Holy Spirit there is nothing to disagree about since it becomes a secular question the answer to which is more than 0% and less than 100% but who the hell cares? |
March 7th, 2018 at 7:46:43 AM permalink | |
pew Member since: Jan 8, 2013 Threads: 4 Posts: 1232 | The reliability of the gospels is however a proof for God so maybe it does the hell matter. |
March 7th, 2018 at 8:11:30 AM permalink | |
Fleastiff Member since: Oct 27, 2012 Threads: 62 Posts: 7831 |
Consider King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Clearly it was universally regarded as a mere legend having no real historical significance until that is the recent archeology discoveries once some poor fool started digging in the proper area. Stories with differences? Of course. We can go round and round on this: Identical stories would seem forced and falsified, differences will be exaggerated and used as "proof" of falsity just as in any endeavor when the real question is not authenticity or a scholarly judgment that embraces a lack of definitive proof but an adversarial victory were a win is important and truth is not important. Are the gospels reliable? Reliable to whom? For what purpose. It is much like anything else. You can rely on it if you choose to. This is particularly relevant when your reliance on it is based on the fact that it is important to you to believe in its validity. The melting Greenland ice cap reveals rivers where ancient maps depict rivers and forests. So now some of us embrace the same maps that Hitler embraced and some of us reject them simply because Hitler agreed with them. For many people Faith is important. Much more important that the emerging topographic details of Greenland is the desired belief that Hitler was wrong in all things at all times. Its a matter of faith. And in a matter of faith all facts have to be chosen carefully with the inconvenient facts dismissed just as strongly as those who believe in them are dismissed. The more things change, the more they stay the same. |
March 7th, 2018 at 8:20:43 AM permalink | |
Fleastiff Member since: Oct 27, 2012 Threads: 62 Posts: 7831 | Well, here again, I've never really read the Bible and, growing up in a cult, I never really had much of a curriculum in Sunday School. However, as I understand the teachings of such Sunday and Other Schools, the whole idea behind them is that as adults we should cling to what we were taught. So perhaps it is the Sunday and Sundry schools that should change. |
March 7th, 2018 at 9:14:57 AM permalink | |
odiousgambit Member since: Oct 28, 2012 Threads: 154 Posts: 5055 | I'm not sure I have anything to add at this point. My interest in the topic differs quite a bit from the norm. For me there is: *the Historical Jesus vis a vis the Christian Jesus *not much interest in whether or not NT scripture validates Doctrines *an interest in what documents survived the early centuries, including the Apocrypha, and an interest in those believed to have been lost *an interest in what Jesus and the Disciples were like, and what the NT uniquely reveals *what in the world This Man was up to exactly Combining the first point with the last point, I have read books like "Zealot" by Aslan which points out that there were others like Jesus who we call zealots who also opposed the Romans and their Jewish collaborators and wanted to cause a revolution and prevail over their adversaries militarily; these zealots aspired to be military leaders. Aslan pretty much says this is what our Galilean was too, and that Christianity has made him into something else. This raises the question of why only Jesus and I guess John the Baptist amongst these started a religion [John the B leads his own religion]. To me the answer has to be that they were something quite different, perhaps uninterested entirely in leading the military portion of this revolution [though the Gospels titillate a bit even for that possibility]. I can't square the idea of bloody revolution with much of what has come down as the essential elements of Christianity , such as spurning Revenge, what with "turn the other cheek" I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me] |
March 7th, 2018 at 9:54:46 AM permalink | |
Fleastiff Member since: Oct 27, 2012 Threads: 62 Posts: 7831 | Just about as much as the writings of Sinn Fein reveal about the IRA or the writings of Uncle Ho reveal about the real strategist of the war or Dianetics reveals about the dealings of the Church of Scientology. Revolutionary? Perhaps but even 'an eye for an eye' was a measured response as opposed to the Roman response of annlhilation. Whatever is uniquely revealed has to be understood in the context of their daily life and very little is known about the daily life of a Nile fisherman |
March 7th, 2018 at 9:58:28 AM permalink | |
Dalex64 Member since: Mar 8, 2014 Threads: 3 Posts: 3687 |
Here is what FrGamble said that he meant by reliable:
The reliability of the gospels, how accurately they match the original stories and writings of the authors, says nothing about the accuracy and truth of the CONTENT of the writing. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
March 7th, 2018 at 10:50:07 AM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25010 |
That's what it all comes down to. We have copies of copies of copies of copies (add a few more copies onto that) of original documents that were culled from stories of stories of stories of stories (ad nauseam) to the point that we can have no idea as to what the real story was. I can guarantee this. It was boring and there was nothing supernatural about any of it. All that crap was added by the extremely ignorant and superstitious story tellers as time went on. So make a religion out of the fairy tales that were invented, why not. Pretend there is a god that talks to you, what the heck. Force others to convert like the Church did for hundreds and hundreds of years. For me the whole thing is beyond belief (pun intended) and I'm tired of giving so much time to discussing something that has about as much real meaning as Jack and the Beanstalk or Snow White and the 7 Dwarves. Like I've said many times, Xtions have had their fangs removed, they can no longer burn women at the stake or imprison people for science they disagree with. Who cares what they do now, just as long as it doesn't involve me.. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |