Are the Gospels Reliable?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@DaleCutler

What’s wrong with your request is that it is tantamount to demanding proof.

No it isn’t. He’s asking for something like a good consensus among historians about some purported historical event being a fact. Presumably historians would agree it is a historical fact that Harry S. Truman was president of the United States of America. Is that proof? I don’t think so. You’re exaggerating the demand to make it seem unreasonable when it actually isn’t just because you know you can’t meet it.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

And it’s “prophecy” when it says something as vague as “believers will suffer and be mocked and some will be killed” without any specific details about when, where, how much, by whom specifically?

Prophecy about the coming of the Messiah is very specific. It also describes very accurately the life ministry death and return to life of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus. Isaiah 7,9,11,42,49, 52,53,61 and Daniel 7 and 9 for starters.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@Roy

I’ve seen people claim that Matthew was an eyewitness account more often than not. I’ve seen people claim that all four gospels were eyewitness accounts more times than I can remember.

Well, I think they are eyewitness accounts, but I was pointing out that even the secular scholarship points to at least authorship within the plausible lifetime of eyewitnesses. It’s a far cry from the old 3rd to 4th century claims.

The reason given for a 70+ AD date for the Gospels is that Jesus makes a specific claim about the destruction of the temple. So it must have been written after, because there’s no way he could have actually known that, right?

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@Faizal_Ali

There’s a difference between “improbable” and “physically impossible.”

Exactly! A virgin giving birth is impossible! Dead people (buried and everything) coming back to life is impossible! I would not make the claim that I believe in the Resurrection because it’s probable.

The only probability argument I’ve made is that it’s plausible that the Gospels were written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Jordan

The reason given for a 70+ AD date for the Gospels is that Jesus makes a specific claim about the destruction of the temple. So it must have been written after, because there’s no way he could have actually known that, right?

Daniel also makes a claim about the destruction of the temple estimated before 500 BC.

[John_Dalton]

@Guy_Coe

No more inappropriate than the original insults hurled at the demonstrable historicity of the gospels.

So the books are deserving of respect? These are just history books right?

@Jordan

So it must have been written after, because there’s no way he could have actually known that, right?

This points to the dilemma with this entire concept. If we’re to believe that Jesus could have known what would happen in the future, we’re talking about something that defies everything about reality as we know it. So are we talking about a work of history or no? If we go by the practices of history, then yes we date the completion of the book to after the destruction of Jerusalem because the author obviously had like all other authors to comply with the laws of reality and work according to facts in his possession at the time. Once we start bending those laws, then we may as well say anything is possible as long as your preferred supernatural idea has made it so and the concept of history loses all meaning.

This stuff is a belief. You either believe it or you don’t. It’s simply not supported to the extent that belief is reasonable and disbelief unreasonable on that basis alone. It is what it is

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@Faizal_Ali

The more fundamental problem here is that the entire argument is based on assessing probabilities. It’s too improbable that the disciples would die for a lie. It’s too improbable that they would all have hallucinations at the same time of a resurrected Jesus. Etc.

What is being committed here is the taxi cab fallacy. Probabilities are invoked throughout the argument, until the point comes to assess the probability of a guy coming back from the dead. Then, the argument suddenly flips to “Well, improbable things can still happen.”

I see two separate arguments though, regarding the Resurrection. One argument is whether the Gospels are a reliable record of the supposed historical events. The other argument is whether the Resurrection actually happened.

I would suggest that it’s reasonable to use probabilities to assess the 1st (reliable record), but since the Gospels don’t claim that the Resurrection was probable, only that it happened, that the 2nd (Ressurection happened) needs to be handled separately. You are mixing them together.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@John_Dalton

This points to the dilemma with this entire concept. If we’re to believe that Jesus could have known what would happen in the future, we’re talking about something that defies everything about reality as we know it. So are we talking about a work of history or no?

1. Note, I think I’m fine with going AD 70, I just have other reasons to believe it could have been earlier. No harm, no foul.
2. Christians, generally, don’t claim it was only history. I think it’s up to each one of us to decide.

@John_Dalton

This stuff is a belief. You either believe it or you don’t. It’s simply not supported to the extent that belief is reasonable and disbelief unreasonable on that basis alone. It is what it is

I would only suggest that both belief and unbelief are reasonable. Each, to me, have their strengths and weaknesses in terms of argumentation.

I think because I’ve been a Christian all my life I tend to be skeptical of “brute force” logical arguments for Christianity. I think the problem of evil and God’s hiddenness are much bigger problems than “dead people don’t rise”.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Jordan

@Roy

I’ve seen people claim that Matthew was an eyewitness account more often than not. I’ve seen people claim that all four gospels were eyewitness accounts more times than I can remember.

Well, I think they are eyewitness accounts,…

You think they are eyewitness accounts even though one of them says it isn’t?

The reason given for a 70+ AD date for the Gospels is that Jesus makes a specific claim about the destruction of the temple. So it must have been written after, because there’s no way he could have actually known that, right?

That’s one reason given, but not the only one, and anyway its far more complicated than you suggest because the passage also appears in Mark which is often dated before then. indeed.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Jordan

Note, I think I’m fine with going AD 70, I just have other reasons to believe it could have been earlier. No harm, no foul

The date is not the problem at all with skeptics analysis. Jesus had access to old testament prophecy where the destruction of the temple was predicted. This is very shouty scholarship.

[John_Dalton]

@Jordan

Note, I think I’m fine with going AD 70, I just have other reasons to believe it could have been earlier. No harm, no foul.

Any other reason than what I referred to? Just curious. I mean, I get it. It’s just not believable if you look at it from a straightforward historical viewpoint as far as I can see.

@Jordan

I would only suggest that both belief and unbelief are reasonable. Each, to me, have their strengths and weaknesses in terms of argumentation.

It depends on how you define “reasonable”. I said “on that basis alone” specifically for that reason. I don’t think it’s enough reason in itself to say, “yeah I can be sure this happened”.

@Jordan

I think because I’ve been a Christian all my life I tend to be skeptical of “brute force” logical arguments for Christianity. I think the problem of evil and God’s hiddenness are much bigger problems than “dead people don’t rise”.

I still don’t get why I’m supposed to be so impressed by the dead rising personally. Nice trick if you can do it, but so what. I haven’t seen a logical argument I believe, or I guess I would be a Christian I’m not so sure about the problem of evil myself, but hiddenness does raise questions for me.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@Roy

Well, I think they are eyewitness accounts,…

You think they are eyewitness accounts even though one of them says it isn’t?

Well, Luke is the only one that gives a good idea of authorship and he says he “interviewed” eyewitnesses - that’s what I mean there. I believe they are the stories of eyewitnesses, recorded by either the witnesses themselves or somebody close to them. Again, I can’t prove that, but that’s my guess.

@Roy

anyway its far more complicated than you suggest

No doubt, I’m very far from a NT scholar.

@John_Dalton

Note, I think I’m fine with going AD 70, I just have other reasons to believe it could have been earlier. No harm, no foul.

Any other reason than what I referred to? Just curious. I mean, I get it. It’s just not believable if you look at it from a straightforward historical viewpoint as far as I can see.

Sure. I was meaning, that because I believe Jesus was in direct communication with God, I don’t have a problem with it being prophetic. I totally get why a historian would go AD 70+

@John_Dalton

It depends on how you define “reasonable”. I said “on that basis alone” specifically for that reason. I don’t think it’s enough reason in itself to say, “yeah I can be sure this happened”.

Yeah, I would agree with that.

@John_Dalton

I’m not so sure about the problem of evil myself, but hiddenness does raise questions for me.

Common ground!

Some days I wake up thinking, “gosh, this whole thing seems super-complicated and far-fetched”. Some days I think “God, why the heck did you allow that suffering? Where were you?!” Doubt is a significant part of many people’s journey. I would be much more interested in discussing how people deal with doubt, but we can’t seem to get away from trying to prove each other wrong .

[John_Dalton]

@Jordan

Some days I wake up thinking, “gosh, this whole thing seems super-complicated and far-fetched”. Some days I think “God, why the heck did you allow that suffering? Where were you?!” Doubt is a significant part of many people’s journey.

You have to wonder about some suffering. I’m sure we could all think of a few improvements we could make without seemingly causing a major shock to the whole system. But maybe this is as good as it can be somehow. It looks to me more like what I’d expect from uncaring nature than a caring entity, I will say that.

I would be much more interested in discussing how people deal with doubt, but we can’t seem to get away from trying to prove each other wrong

I hear you! I’m not really hyper about proving anyone wrong (though some may disagree ), but my back may get up a little with something like this historical argument. I’m fine with people believing it, and I accept that you have reasons for doing so. I know people want to believe things for good reasons, but if someone tries to tell me something is a historical fact or logically necessary, etc., I feel duty bound to speak up on occasion

[Faizal_Ali]

@Jordan

The only probability argument I’ve made is that it’s plausible that the Gospels were written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses.

Probability arguments are commonly made by Christian apologists. Here is an example:

The Resurrection of God Incarnate

[cdods]

@Faizal_Ali

The only probability argument I’ve made is that it’s plausible that the Gospels were written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses.

Probability arguments are commonly made by Christian apologists. Here is an example:

Asking Jordan to defend all the bad arguments from Christian apologists could keep him pretty busy. I think it would be best to only ask him to defend his own arguments.

[Faizal_Ali]

@cdods

Asking Jordan to defend all the bad arguments from Christian apologists could keep him pretty busy. I think it would be best to only ask him to defend his own arguments.

I’m not asking him to defend arguments he does not find defensible. I am just bringing to his attention arguments he claims no one makes.

[T_aquaticus]

@cdods

Asking Jordan to defend all the bad arguments from Christian apologists could keep him pretty busy.

Since we have a somewhat cordial group of atheists and christians, it is worth pointing out all of the bad arguments we atheists hear. If nothing else, we are helping out christians by cleaning up their arguments. I certainly don’t think the gospels are inherently false just because they are 2nd or 3rd hand accounts, but christians who argue that they are direct accounts from eye witnesses tends to eat away at that christian’s credibility when they are witnessing to other people.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
–St. Augustine, 400 AD

[Guy_Coe]

Of course; if one proceeds, a priori, with the belief that God would not / could not enter human history in human form, then it all might still have an historical core, yet be completely mistaken.
The “proof” is in the pudding of what one believes is possible no matter how improbable. But, it also lies in the coherency of the narrative.

[structureoftruth (Matthew Dickau)]

A couple of resources relevant to this thread, being among the best that I have found for presenting reasons to consider the Gospels as reliable. (Anyone want to post a selection of counter-resources on the other side?) Take it or leave it:

Peter J. Williams recently released a nice little book called “Can We Trust the Gospels” that gathers together a number of reasons in favor of the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Lydia Mcgrew’s “Hidden in Plain View” develops one of those reasons in greater depth in a very accessible way.

You can search YouTube for a series of presentations (something like 10hrs in total) by Tim McGrew on the historical reliability of the Gospels; he gives positive reasons in favor and also interacts with criticisms from skeptical scholars like Bart Erhman.

And of course on the question of whether the Gospels are eyewitness testimony, there’s always “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” by Richard Bauckham.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@Faizal_Ali

I am just bringing to his attention arguments he claims no one makes.

At the risk of launching a whole new thing, which claim? I skimmed back through the thread and couldn’t find where I claimed people don’t make probability arguments.