Thanks for responding to my post and wondering how I regard the Bible. I believe it is the “inspired” Word of God, which means “in-breathed;” but, I never use the words “inerrant” or “infallible” so often used by fundamentalists or ultra-conservatives: for they’re basically terms used to prejudge someone who chooses not to use them. It’s what I call “creeping creedalism.”
Thus, I believe God used 40 men over 1,500 years to faithfully record what He led them to write what He said in light of what was happening. And, in reality, it’s our view of Him that determines how we look at the Bible and if it’s true or not.
Oh dear where to start…I suggest you look outside your current information resources, and look at the mainstream historical assets. These are available online and from nearly every mainstream university that offers 1st - 6th century history as a major.
There are even a series of lectures on this very subject by Yale available online.
Your unevidenced claim that the 3 synoptics are genuine eyewitness accounts is not even accepted by the Catholic Church. So I would be fascinated to learn how you obtain such certitude to not only the alleged authors but their credibility
Let me introduce you to some incontrivertible historical facts..the 3 synoptics were not written until at least 70 ce. They were all anonymous, 2 of the three are copied in the main from the first, and rewritten to suit their preferred audiences.
Details such as the virgin birth are all later additions and did not appear in original versions as disseminated to the first jewish followers. .
‘John’ was not written until at least 90ce- 125ce, and if that is the case an eyewitness claim without contemporary corroboration anð in late 1st century style is no way an eyewitness account. And dont bring up discredited Polycarp.
There were plenty other ‘gospels’ written in the late 1st to late 20th century and other texts that garnered more followers than your preferred late 4th century version.
I shall stop here as you may be overwhelmed, and need time to research actual history.
I am happy to continue our discussion and give you pointers to factual resources. Please do not waste our time by posting youtube links to clickbait sources that are fundamentally inaccurate.
And lastly the ‘cl’ is ‘clouds’ …as in my propensity to shout my perceived injustice at bring forced to debate the same subject many times…
This was the first time that I’ve read that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept the Synoptic Gospel accounts as credible when it comes to the eyewitness accounts. As for the time of their writing, most scholars believe Matthew was finished somewhere around A.D. 58-68, while Mark’s Gospel (the oldest) was likely written around A.D. 55-65–while Dr. Luke’s was finished somewhere before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.
So, my question to you is “What proof do you have that they were all anonymous, two of the three being copied from the first and how the virgin birth was a later addition to the original versions?”
Again, it’s important to have substantiating evidence to prove such assertions (as you know). Thanks also for sharing what the “cl” stands for; I’ve done that myself a few times–but I’ve found it’s always best to approach life (and the Bible) with childlike Faith: trusting in a God Who’s “beyond our pay grade” (as we used to say in the military), but has chosen to reveal Himself to us as recorded in the Bible.
I realize that your reply was to Mordant, but I’d like to respond, JC.
So what’s the difference between a literal interpretation of Bible events and believing what happened in them? I don’t understand the difference here. Because of the logic of the following argument.
If we read the gospels literally it says that Jesus died on the cross as a blood sacrifice to save us all from ours sins. And if we read the gospels, believing what happened in them, then aren’t we doing the same thing and arriving at the same conclusion? That Jesus died on the cross as a blood sacrifice to save us all from our sins. I see no difference here.
Consequently I cannot see the difference you are drawing here JC. Surely, to read the gospels literally is also to read them historically?
Can you explain further to help me understand the difference you are talking about?
Oh I agree, lets so lets see, you claimed that the synoptic gospels were eyewitness accounts…
No substantiating eveidence supplied…
Then in your next post you claim :
Please substantiate “Most scholars”…Do you mean theologians or historians or a combination of theological historians and define “:most” . Numbers, names and affiliations if you try, please.
This should be a fascinating exercise…
Oh and you are right to be confused the Catholic Church as recently as 2010 said that the authorship of the gospels was not as important as their impact and that the names of the authors would have been known to their contemporaries…can you see the flaw in that argument?
All of the “authors” of the gospels are traditional attributions. This is well known and established.
Another thing to consider is that the texts do not state their methodology or approach. If I were writing a gospel account and wanted subsequent generations to find me credible I would state how I researched my material / sources, I would clearly state that I had interviewed actual eyewitnesses and not their descendants or acquaintances, for example. Indeed, I would name names and demonstrate the role, if any, each witness had in the proto-orthodox church.
Of course I am imposing 20th century (note I did not say 21st century, lol) standards of journalistic practice on a 2,000 year old text. But that is nevertheless what it would take to even being to establish credibility. This is triply true because extraordinary and consequential truth claims require extraordinary and consequential evidence.
You stated earlier that the fact the gospels mention real place names establishes credibility. I would regard that as necessary but woefully insufficient. Does the fact that the Harry Potter books mention London, right down to specific train station platforms, evidence that it is not fictional? Does the fact that the saga of Moses and the Exodus mentions real place names do anything to make up for the fact that there is literally zero historic evidence that Moses was anything but an invented culture hero, and that in terms of the archaeological record there was no captivity, much less wandering in the desert? The most economical explanation is that the whole saga is an invented heroic / epic backstory written to bolster national and racial pride during a dark chapter of Jewish history (the Babylonian diaspora).
Oh and for your information JC, its a category error to use the word ‘prove’ in the context of historical documents. Proofs do not exist in history, but only in logic and mathematics.
That’s because something which is proven is an absolute which cannot be refuted or overturned by new evidence. But since you believe the Bible by faith (as per Hebrews 11 : 1) and not by evidence, the words proof and proven cannot be properly used in this context.
John 20 : 30 & 31 is relevant here.
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
You see? The Bible was written to promote faith among its readers. And matters of faith are just as removed from the use of proofs as is history or anything except logic and mathematics.
Exactly – in fact the bar is pretty low compared to, say, science. A historian I read once said that when it comes down to the paucity of evidence and questionable chain-of-possession of ancient documents, it is really just “what explanation represents the best distillation of available data that can’t be conclusively disproven” – which is a very low bar indeed.
Also not mentioned often enough is that the scholarship surrounding the origins of Christianity is usually beholden directly or indirectly to various church interests. It is Christians ultimately who care about their own origins and will thus exert subtle and not-so-subtle influence over scholarship. Even when this is not true, the mere existence of the field owes itself to the hegemony of the Christian belief-system and would tend to evaporate if that system were substantively weakened. Without the inertia of centuries of widely accepted church dogma, the Bible is just the ravings of bronze and iron-age goatherds.
Thanks for your response, Walter. I do take the Gospel accounts literally as happening the way they’re recorded. Consequently, I believe the miracles literally happened (e.g., the feeding of the 5,000, the healings of the afflicted, etc.); otherwise, Jesus’ Death and Resurrection would also be questionable and lacking in evidence that they are true.
That’s why it’s important to also be a student of the Hebrew Scriptures and all that led up to His Birth in Bethlehem; otherwise, we’ll not know about the 300+ Messianic prophecies that were given and how He fulfilled them all. It’ll also be impossible to understand the Epistle to the Hebrews without a basic understanding of Mosaic Law, the Levitical sacrificial system, the Aaronic priesthood, etc.–for the whole Epistle focuses on Jesus’ Superiority to all of them by His “fulfilling the Law instead of destroying it” (Matthew 5:17).
Hope this makes sense. Again, it all comes back to our belief in God as recorded in the Bible–as the Creator and Sustainer of all that is–and how He progressively revealed Himself through history until fully revealing Himself in Jesus: Who He was/is, what He did and is still doing.
The monkey god Hanuman jumped from mainland India to Sri Lanka to find Sita for her beloved Rama. Since these are real places, on the basis of JustCurious’ argument, Hanuman’s jump must be a historical fact.
The Yogic holy man Milarepa used his powers of spiritual enlightenment to fly from the Drakar Taso cave over the Himalaya mountains. Again, because these are real places, this must be a historical fact.
The flying horse Buraq (Lightning) carried the prophet Mohammed from Medina to Jerusalem. Because these are real places, this must be a historical fact.
Or shall we just attribute historical fact to ANY story from any culture that mentions real places in connection with fabulous events and supernatural happenings?
Your points are well-taken and logical; but, again, it’s our view of Who God is, what He promised and did that determines our response to the various Biblical accounts. And, as someone said, the main question is “If you knew that Christianity is true, would you become a Christian?”
Well that gets into what knowledge is and how one legitimately comes by it. You have just declared a self-validating tautology. But props to you for honesty!
That’s why we must consider the evidence (historical, archaeological, etc.) to discern what is fiction and actually true. And, again, that’s where Faith–that’s rooted in the evidence–approaches the Bible as true, not make-believe.
Yes, that’s what it’s all about, Mordant, because we’re all in a quest for Truth, when it comes down to it: and we know everyone can’t be right. That’s why we must confess our ignorance while also being open to revealed Truth–which is what we find in the Bible, especially when Pilate asked “What is Truth?” and Jesus basically said “You’re looking at Him.”
But the problem I have with this approach is that if you are going to take the gospels as historical then you also have to take what Jesus said about the Old Testament as historical too. So when he said this in Matthew 19…
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
…he wasn’t speaking figuratively or metaphorically about Adam and Eve. He was speaking about them historically. This establishes the Genesis account of creation as historical.
Which, given what we now know about the origin and age of the universe, the Earth and human beings, is a BIG problem. You either have to go against what Jesus is saying and interpret Genesis allegorically or symbolically or you have to deny everything science tells us about our origins. There’s no halfway house here. It’s one or the other.
But you aren’t doing that. By your own admission you’re selectively paying attention to sources sympathetic to what you have already decided is true. You aren’t on a mission to follow the facts where they lead (or to withhold belief when they don’t lead much of anywhere). You put the cart before the horse and believed first and then went on an expedition to minimize the resulting cognitive dissonance when facts don’t support or outright contradict the belief.
Sorry, but that contradicts Hebrews 11 : 1 and John 20 : 30 & 31.
The Bible was written, not be to confirmed or refuted by evidence, but to be believed by faith in the absence of evidence.
That’s why you, as a Christian believe by faith what the still, small voice said to Elijah in the wilderness. There’s no way you can check or verify its historical validity. You MUST believe it by faith and without evidence.
Here’s something about faith for you to consider, JC.
The New Testament mentions the establishment of church in Ephesus, Berea, Corinth, Rome and other places. Did the true believers in these churches actually see the risen Jesus for themselves, with their own eyes? Or did they believe without the evidence of their own eyes and ears, on the testimony of other Christians who told them about this event?
You know that it’s not the former but the latter.
Knowing this surely you can see that’s how Christianity grew and spread and that’s how you’ve also come to believe. Not on the basis of any actual historical evidence that you can evaluate for yourself, but only only the basis of written and spoken testimony, far removed from the actual resurrection event itself.
The problem is that no one knows who wrote the canonical gospels, the names were added arbitrarily over 2 centuries after the events they purport to describe, and the earliest copies dated decades later than the events they claim to describe. The claims are by definition no more than unevidenced second-hand (at best) hearsay.
The fact the accounts contradict each other is just another reason to take the claims with a pinch of salt, and as for supernatural claims, to remain dubious until someone can demonstrate any compelling objective evidence anything supernatural is even possible.
The question is an odd one, as I would never believe anything based on the bias of religious faith, NB religious faith has a very different definition to the primary meaning of the word faith.
Exactly, the fact that hearsay from multiple sources derived decades after the events they claim to describe, differ from each other, is hardly a surprise, rather the opposite is true.
Faith (religious) can be used to believe any religious claims, it has no value in objectively verifying claims at all.
There is only the most scant historical evidence Jesus existed at all, and no objective evidence that he was anything but human if he did. ignoring hat texts actually say when they are demonstrably wrong in favour of a “non-literal” and subjective interpretation doesn’t tell us anything about the veracity of the claims in those stories.
So whilst this is ostensibly true, it is irrelevant, as historical verification has very well defined criteria to be met, and the gospel myths don’t come close to this. This is also of course as clear a case of fallacious whataboutism as one can imagine.
Gilbert J. Garraghan and Jean Delanglez (1946) divide source criticism into six inquiries:[3]
When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism. Together, this inquiry is known as source criticism. A cursory look shows how much historical veracity one can attach to the anonymous hearsay of the gospel myths, and that is for natural claims, there is no historical method or any other that I am aware of for validating claims for magic and the supernatural.
There are no eyewitness accounts in the gospel myths, none? The documents are not contemporary accounts, and none are known to exist.
You’re not doing that, and religious faith is the antithesis of objectively examining the claims in the unevidenced hearsay of the gospel myths.
The Spiderman movie accurately depicts New York, do you really imagine this represents evidence that Spiderman is real? There is no archaeological evidence to support any supernatural claims, none. There is some to roundly disprove biblical claims, the Noah flood myth for example is utterly falsified by the geological record.
Nonsense, but by all means explain and evidence this bare claim please.
What evidence, present it please? The accounts in the gospel myths are dated decades after the events they purport to describe, and their authorship is unknown, so they are not eyewitness accounts, that is axiomatic.
You don’t get any kudos for stating something that is demonstrably true, as the bible is demonstrably fallible, and in places demonstrably erroneous. The genesis creation myth for example contains claims that are at odds with objective facts. The Noah flood myth is disproved unequivocally by the geological record, which shows no such global flood has ever occurred.
So what, you hold a subjective religious belief, since all religious beliefs are subjective this tells us nothing really.
You’re kidding? You claimed about that we should examine it with forensic objectivity, so this is a truly bizarre question, as some cursory research demonstrates that the authorship of the conical gospels is unknown and that the names Mathew Mark Luke and John we added arbitrarily by early church leaders over two centuries later. How you make claims like you have and not know this, and expect to be taken seriosuly?
Great please offer some that the any deity exists, and that the gospel myths contain eye witness accounts of anything?
