Are the Gospels Reliable?

I think this is the crux of the problem. Can you define who the “we” here is who hold to this particular view of reality? (Can’t be christians, because they believe in the resurrection, cant be muslims because they believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, can’t be Hindus because they also believe in the supernatural)…
Who exactly are this “we” and what is the view of reality they hold to?

Again, can you establish these “laws of reality” you are relying on?

This is a real dilemma.However claiming no supernatural event has ever taken place in history/can never take place in the present is not a solution. Its an assumption based on a predetermined philosophical position. Its no better than thinking something supernatural happened because it’s in line with our beliefs.

Anyone reading it. No supernatural event has ever been demonstrated. Have you ever heard of a person who can demonstrably know what will happen in the future? I account for the possibility that it is believed about Jesus in my statement.

The way things are in reality, for example, that we don’t have access to future events and have to work with facts currently in existence. Are you aware of any writers who can bend these rules?

But I’m not saying that. I am saying that the written accounts available are not sufficient (or anywhere close to it) for us to determine with accuracy that any happened.

2 Likes

You are correct. The solution is to take no position on whether “naturalism” is true, or whether the “supernatural” can or does exist.

We are then left with the only reasonable being option to assess claims with regard to what our observations to date demonstrate to be probable or possible.

We have never observed a resurrection. We have countless observations of people claiming things like resurrections and other miracles that are not verified or demonstrated to be untrue. There is not a single instance of a “miracle” that has been demonstrated to be true by the usual standards by which we determine things to have happened.

Probability, then, is overwhelmingly and conclusively in favour of this particular “miracle” being in the latter category.

1 Like

Actually, a lot of religions have people who are believed to have predicted the future. A prophet in the OT is precisely someone who predicts the future.
I dont see how this can be a valid assumption in dating the gospels.

Everyone who reads what you write will not agree with you… In fact. most chirstians, muslims, hindus etc would disagree with your view on the “laws of reality”.

Again … Prophets… in the OT are believed to have done precisely that.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. You are assuming supernatural events like predicting the future cannot happen, interpreting books accordingly (including assuming dates of authorship) and then saying written accounts available are not sufficient to determine that supernatural stuff happened.

I dont think you can include anyone who is not a materialist in your “we”.

It seems to me a more accurate description of his position is he is not assuming that “supernatural” events have taken place, and is awaiting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that they do. He also correctly takes the position that unverifiable written accounts from long ago do not qualify as sufficient evidence.

2 Likes

Wouldn’t this be true for every single religion for all of human history? What are the implications if Joseph Smith really did receive those Golden Plates, and what if Jesus really did meet with people in the Americas? What if Buddha really did attain Enlightenment? What if Thor really is Odin’s son?

1 Like

50 posts were split to a new topic: Did Jesus Fulfill Messianic Prophecies?

The key word there is “believed”. Anyone can believe anything. You could believe anything you want about the writer of Mark. If he had access to supernatural abilities in some way, he could have done anything I guess. If you’re going to go by that, you may as well just pick any date you want. Maybe I’m missing your point, if you’re making something more of a historical argument about the dating than this. I’m all ears if so.

What’s more, the author could have believed anything himself. We can probably assume he was writing about what he actually believed. That’s something, and is where the actual historical value lies, IMO.

Believed. Some people may believe it. Some people don’t. Where does that leave us? Working on a basis of demonstrable fact will get us closer to reality in all likelihood.

I’m not.

I don’t see how the available written accounts can determine that no matter how you date them. Again, I’m willing to listen to your argument in greater depth, but you may be assuming the supernatural is possible and then applying that notion in a historical process of dating. This strikes me as a bad idea historically speaking.

1 Like

Wait, now we get to use probability arguments? :wink:

2 Likes

They should always be used. Properly.

1 Like

So far we only have your opinion.
We have several accounts all pointing to the same story.
-Mark
-Luke
-Mathew
-John
-Pauls letters
-Acts
-Peter 1 and 2
-James
-Jude
-Revelations
Are you familiar with Gary Habermas minimal facts argument?

2 Likes

It is my understanding that NT scholarship has revealed that most, maybe even all of those are copies of and/or inspired/embellishments of each other, and might plausibly all derive from the same original source. We simply don’t have good enough evidence to think they’re independent in a way they would need to be for your case.

3 Likes

Try these: Isaiah 7.14

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d]

Footnotes:

  1. Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew is plural.
  2. Isaiah 7:14 Or young woman
  3. Isaiah 7:14 Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls son, and he or son, and they
  4. Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel means God with us.

Isaiah 9.6

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Now listen to this popular Christmas song

1 Like

I prefer Handel’s version.

5 Likes

I can see why, @nwrickert !

1 Like

And hear why.

1 Like

Here’s a Christianity Today article by Craig Keener (professor of Biblical Studies at Asbury Seminary) from May that seems pertinent:

Note that this article isn’t a defense of the Resurrection and is written from a Christian perspective. In any case, here are some interesting selections:

The antidote to false miracle claims is not to reject miracles altogether. We must take care when we hear of (or even experience) a miraculous event that we neither accept all miracles as true nor dismiss them all as fake. The reality is much more complex.

But how do we exercise the appropriate amount of caution? While no formula allows us to verify all miracle stories, I have noticed a pattern.

Fraudulent miracles tend to flourish where they profit their purveyors. […] Yes, some Christians downplay miracles too much, but others need to stop exalting them as the highest ministry or as a sign of divine approval, especially where leadership and teaching are concerned.

[…] credible dramatic signs are most frequent where the gospel is breaking fresh ground—as in the Gospels and Acts. In these situations, the miracles tend to advance the cause of faith, not the will or needs of a particular person or group. Miracles are a wonderful foretaste of the coming kingdom. Thus Jesus’ exorcisms revealed the kingdom’s nearness (Luke 11:20), and Jesus describes his healings in language that invokes Isaiah’s description of the ultimate restoration (Luke 7:22). Nevertheless, the kingdom’s fullness remains future. Even genuine gifts are limited: Paul says that we know in part, and we prophesy in part (1 Cor. 13:9).

Additional layers of evaluation help. For example, false teachers often exploit people for money (Jer. 6:13, Micah 3:11, 2 Pet. 2:3) and tell them whatever they want to hear (2 Tim. 4:3–4). Jesus warned us to discern prophets by their fruits, not by their gifts (Matt. 7:15–23). What is the outcome of a particular miracle? God’s gifts are good, but their main purpose is building up Christ’s body, not our reputations (note 1 Cor. 12–14). Most of Jesus’ miracles, such as healing sickness, expelling spirits, and stilling storms, demonstrated compassion as well as power.

Not every claim to a miraculous raising today is authentic. Everywhere in the world, most people who die stay dead. Even those resuscitated miraculously, such as Lazarus, die again; all healing in our mortal bodies is by definition temporary. Such miracles do, however, remind us that Jesus Christ, who raised the dead during his earthly ministry, is the risen and exalted Lord. Sometimes he continues to grant signs of the future, reminders of the resurrection hope that in him awaits us all.

I think this shows where Christians do not blindly believe every claim to the miraculous, and yet allow for the possibility that God may, at times in history and today, manipulate or even violate the normal operations of nature.

3 Likes

That’s like saying you don’t believe every claim that someone saw a unicorn, but you still believe there are unicorns.

Evidence is still needed for the claim.

1 Like

And that is what was suggested in the article. That’s what I was trying to point out. Christians aren’t saying “evidence not needed”. They may accept less or different forms of evidence than what an atheist might, based on their other beliefs.

1 Like

I don’t disagree with your principle here, just the analogy. There’s already been a number of threads discussing this; Christians do believe that there is evidence for the Resurrection.

2 Likes