The Historicity of the Gospels

[Tree of Life]

It's often assumed that the gospel writers could not have been conveying actual history because they were people who believed in Jesus. The idea is that whatever in the Gospels corresponds to Christian faith cannot be historically trustworthy. But why couldn't the opposite be true? Why couldn't it be that only faith could really appreciate and adequately report what happened in the Jesus of history?

 

[cloudyday2]

That seems reasonable to me. If I was picking a biography on Mahatma Gandhi, I would think that his followers would be the best authors, because they understood his motive and might have known what went on behind the scenes.

 

[anonymous person]

It's often assumed that the gospel writers could not have been conveying actual history because they were people who believed in Jesus. The idea is that whatever in the Gospels corresponds to Christian faith cannot be historically trustworthy. But why couldn't the opposite be true? Why couldn't it be that only faith could really appreciate and adequately report what happened in the Jesus of history?

I agree.

Another response to this specific objection to the historicity of the gospels would be to point out the ramifications of holding such a view when it comes to any biography written by an author who believes what they are writing is true. The ramifications of such a view would be that no biography that meets said criteria can be considered to convey actual history!

The underlying premise of such an objection is that believing in Jesus would preclude someone from being able to write a historically accurate biography about Him.

But why?

Why is the premise:

1. If biographer (B) believed in Jesus, then his biography about Jesus cannot be said to convey actual history.

True?

Why does the biographer's believing a person is who they say they are make the account they write about that person historically unreliable?

The only answer I think that could even be offered would be to say that the biographer is biased.

But why is the biographer biased? Is it because they believed in Jesus? If that is the response, then the whole objection just begs the question.

The gospels are unreliable because their authors believed in Jesus because they were biased. They were biased because they believed in Jesus.

That is the argument and once it is critiqued, it is shown to be question begging. It proves nothing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's often assumed that the gospel writers could not have been conveying actual history because they were people who believed in Jesus. The idea is that whatever in the Gospels corresponds to Christian faith cannot be historically trustworthy. But why couldn't the opposite be true? Why couldn't it be that only faith could really appreciate and adequately report what happened in the Jesus of history?

I don't think that the gospel writers "couldn't" convey actual history because of their beliefs....I simply think they didn't.

The reasoning behind my opinion on this is because the bias of the gospels is apparent. Think about it this way...

Suppose you have a modern day news source (t.v. program or something similar) that blatantly states that they want to convince you, for your benefit, that conservatives are always correct and liberals are a bunch of liars...

Would you consider that a trustworthy source to get "the facts" from? Or would you think that their bias is tainting their news reports?

Sure...it's "possible" that conservatives are always correct and liberals are a bunch of liars...

Just like it's "possible" the gospels are a trustworthy source of history.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It's often assumed that the gospel writers could not have been conveying actual history because they were people who believed in Jesus. The idea is that whatever in the Gospels corresponds to Christian faith cannot be historically trustworthy. But why couldn't the opposite be true? Why couldn't it be that only faith could really appreciate and adequately report what happened in the Jesus of history?

"Why can't X be true?" is not a compelling argument for anything. I mean, can you tell me why the flying spaghetti monster cannot exist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why does the biographer's believing a person is who they say they are make the account they write about that person historically unreliable?

I wouldn't necessarily immediatly jump to "it's unreliable", but I'ld most certainly keep in mind potential bias in the writings.

Let's take an extreme and more recent example to illustrate this. Let's take 3 biographies of Adolf Hitler.

The first is written by one of his trusted nazi associates.
The second is written by a commander of the french army.
The third is written by a historian several decades after the facts, who simply did his best in objectively researching it all.

Now, I don't know about you, but I would fully expect to read 3 different character descriptions in those books.

Let's bring this into current times. Let's take Kim from North Korea.
Imagine a biography written by a North Korean official.

Do you think this will be an accurate biography?
How about when it is written by a South Korean official?

See?

So yes, I think that we should definatly keep in mind who the source is. Especially when it considers religious scriptures.

The only answer I think that could even be offered would be to say that the biographer is biased.

But why is the biographer biased? Is it because they believed in Jesus? If that is the response, then the whole objection just begs the question.

The gospels are unreliable because their authors believed in Jesus because they were biased. They were biased because they believed in Jesus.

That is the argument and once it is critiqued, it is shown to be question begging. It proves nothing.

I don't see how that begs the question.

The very fact that they are followers / fans, means that they are biased.
When biased people write things about the person or event that they are biased about, that bias will reflect in their writings one way or the other.

Seems rather obvious.

 

[anonymous person]

I don't think that the gospel writers "couldn't" convey actual history because of their beliefs....I simply think they didn't.

The reasoning behind my opinion on this is because the bias of the gospels is apparent. Think about it this way...

Suppose you have a modern day news source (t.v. program or something similar) that blatantly states that they want to convince you, for your benefit, that conservatives are always correct and liberals are a bunch of liars...

Would you consider that a trustworthy source to get "the facts" from? Or would you think that their bias is tainting their news reports?

Sure...it's "possible" that conservatives are always correct and liberals are a bunch of liars...

Just like it's "possible" the gospels are a trustworthy source of history.

A detectable bias in a source does not necessarily mean the source is unreliable. I can provide a reference for that if you want me to.

Understanding the bias however if there is one in a source, is essential in interpreting it.

Can you give an example in the gospels where there is a bias of such a nature that would render said source historically unreliable?

 

[anonymous person]

I wouldn't necessarily immediatly jump to "it's unreliable", but I'ld most certainly keep in mind potential bias in the writings.

Let's take an extreme and more recent example to illustrate this. Let's take 3 biographies of Adolf Hitler.

The first is written by one of his trusted nazi associates.
The second is written by a commander of the french army.
The third is written by a historian several decades after the facts, who simply did his best in objectively researching it all.

Now, I don't know about you, but I would fully expect to read 3 different character descriptions in those books.

Let's bring this into current times. Let's take Kim from North Korea.
Imagine a biography written by a North Korean official.

Do you think this will be an accurate biography?
How about when it is written by a South Korean official?

See?

So yes, I think that we should definatly keep in mind who the source is. Especially when it considers religious scriptures.



I don't see how that begs the question.

The very fact that they are followers / fans, means that they are biased.
When biased people write things about the person or event that they are biased about, that bias will reflect in their writings one way or the other.

Seems rather obvious.

The examples you listed are not analogous to what we are discussing. As such they can be dismissed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A detectable bias in a source does not necessarily mean the source is unreliable. I can provide a reference for that if you want me to.

Understanding the bias however if there is one in a source, is essential in interpreting it.

Can you give an example in the gospels where there is a bias of such a nature that would render said source historically unreliable?

Generally speaking, the point of the gospels themselves is to convince people of the divinity of Jesus, not to accurately record history. The word gospel itself means "good news"....not "history" or "accurate news". The very title itself "gospel" gives away it's intent.

Once it's no longer about accurately and objectively recording history...it's not just a historical document. It's religious propaganda.

What kind of examples would you like?

 

[anonymous person]

Generally speaking, the point of the gospels themselves is to convince people of the divinity of Jesus, not to accurately record history.

The gospels were not intended to accurately record history?

Why do you think that?

Why does the fact that the gospels were ancient biographies necessarily land them in the category of "historically unreliable"?

How many biographies have you read? What are their titles?

The word gospel itself means "good news"....not "history" or "accurate news". The very title itself "gospel" gives away it's intent.

This argument seems very strange indeed. I can give you a list of various works of history that do not have the word "history" in their title. They are no less historical works for the lack of that word in their title and in all of them you will find the authors endeavoring to convince their intended audiences that what they were recording was an accurate account of certain historical states of affairs.

Once it's no longer about accurately and objectively recording history...it's not just a historical document. It's religious propaganda.

You have a long way to go in showing the gospels and Paul's letters are not reliable historical documents.

What kind of examples would you like?

An example where there is a bias of such a nature that would render said source historically unreliable?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The gospels were not intended to accurately record history?

Why do you think that?

Lots of reasons...but the one we're discussing here is bias. Do you want to stick to that topic or would you prefer that I address multiple reasons why they aren't reliable?

Why does the fact that the gospels were ancient biographies necessarily land them in the category of "historically unreliable"?

That's not a fact...nice try though.

How many biographies have you read? What are their titles?

Only a few, I'm not into biographies...not even when I want to read history. These questions aren't relevant anyway.

This argument seems very strange indeed. I can give you a list of various works of history that do not have the word "history" in their title. They are no less historical works for the lack of that word in their title and in all of them you will find the authors endeavoring to convince their intended audiences that what they were recording was an accurate account of certain historical states of affairs.

How many ancient historical works include words of bias in the title?

You have a long way to go in showing the gospels and Paul's letters are not reliable historical documents.

Again, the topic was how bias makes them unreliable...but I'm more than willing to expand to other reasons if you're prepared to address them.

An example where there is a bias of such a nature that would render said source historically unreliable?

Gladly, but first I'd like to know exactly what you think these historical documents are a "history" of? I don't want to start citing examples and then have you simply dismiss them because you don't think they're relevant to the "history" that you believe the gospels describe.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Can you give an example in the gospels where there is a bias of such a nature that would render said source historically unreliable?

Sure, the gospel writers regularly report unrealistic things without the faintest mention that they might be wrong. For instance, the writer of Matthew reports that many dead people came out of the graves and appeared to many. How does he know that? He doesn't tell us. But seeing that he probably wrote a generation after Jesus, he would surely be skeptical of his source, even if it was very reliable. People don't come out of the graves. And certainly there are not times when many dead people come out of the graves together. And certainly, had it happened, everybody would have been talking about. And yet everybody seems to be silent about this but Matthew. How could the writer of Matthew have possibly known that his source was right in such circumstances? He appears to have an overwhelming trust in this without question.

When one's bias causes someone to have overwhelming trust in something that appears he should not be trusting, then perhaps the rest of his writings are influenced by his bias.

 

[anonymous person]

Lots of reasons...but the one we're discussing here is bias. Do you want to stick to that topic or would you prefer that I address multiple reasons why they aren't reliable?

The gospels are unreliable because they claim to report good news.....

Is your argument.

You're essentislly saying that if an author intends to record something that is good news, it is necessarily unreliable.

So much for every document every written that fits that criteria.....

What bias did the sanhedrin members and the Romans have when they acknowledged the tomb Jesus was buried in was empty?

What bias did the gospel authors have when they reported that women were the first to discover the empty tomb?

What bias did they have when they recorded that all of Jesus' disciples fled like cowards we He was arrested?

What bias did they have when they recorded that Peter denied Jesus not once, not twice, but three times.

What bias did they have when they recorded numerous instances of the disciples being dull and slow and for all intents and purposes your average ordinary joes.

What bias did they have when they recorded that Jesus was baptized by John?

What bias did they have when they recorded Jesus was born in a stable with animals?

We have multiple, independent, and very early attestation to the empty tomb.

We never find the Romans or sanhedrin denying the empty tomb. They affirm it was empty for they worked together in coming up with a story that the body had been stolen.

I get it. You're an anti-theist who may have read a handful of biographies. You presuppose the impossibility of the supernatural and you therefore try to make all of this fit into your naturalistic worldview, no matter how contrived and ad-hoc your explanations get. You at the present are not willing to have your views changed by the data, but rather seek to have the data align with your worldviews. As such you cannot be objective. And as such I am limited as to what I am prepared to say to you.

 

[anonymous person]

Sure, the gospel writers regularly report unrealistic things without the faintest mention that they might be wrong. For instance, the writer of Matthew reports that many dead people came out of the graves and appeared to many. How does he know that? He doesn't tell us. But seeing that he probably wrote a generation after Jesus, he would surely be skeptical of his source, even if it was very reliable. People don't come out of the graves. And certainly there are not times when many dead people come out of the graves together. And certainly, had it happened, everybody would have been talking about. And yet everybody seems to be silent about this but Matthew. How could the writer of Matthew have possibly known that his source was right in such circumstances? He appears to have an overwhelming trust in this without question.

When one's bias causes someone to have overwhelming trust in something that appears he should not be trusting, then perhaps the rest of his writings are influenced by his bias.

Do you presuppose the impossibility of the events recorded in the gospels?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The gospels are unreliable because they claim to report good news.....

Is your argument.

This is classic intellectual dishonesty in action...everyone get an eye full. My claim was that the bias inherent in the gospels made them unreliable as historical documents. I merely pointed out that by labeling them the "gospels" the anonymous author(s) have thrown objectivity out the window at the very start. They are believers and they want you (the reader) to believe as well.

You're essentislly saying that if an author intends to record something that is good news, it is necessarily unreliable.

Again...blatantly mischaracterized my argument. See above.

What bias did the sanhedrin members and the Romans have when they acknowledged the tomb Jesus was buried in was empty?

Citation please? I don't want to comment on the wrong reference...so include whatever you're referring to from here on out please.

What bias did the gospel authors have when they reported that women were the first to discover the empty tomb?

The gospels are written with the intention of "selling" the reader on the divinity of Jesus...the answer here is rather obvious.

What bias did they have when they recorded that all of Jesus' disciples fled like cowards we He was arrested?

What bias did they have when they recorded that Peter denied Jesus not once, not twice, but three times.

What bias did they have when they recorded numerous instances of the disciples being dull and slow and for all intents and purposes your average ordinary joes.

What bias did they have when they recorded that Jesus was baptized by John?

What bias did they have when they recorded Jesus was born in a stable with animals?

We have multiple, independent, and very early attestation to the empty tomb.

We never find the Romans or sanhedrin denying the empty tomb. They affirm it was empty for they worked together in coming up with a story that the body had been stolen.

I didn't claim that every single line of the gospels is ridden with bias...I merely claimed that the bias that is in the gospels makes them unreliable. Once again, this is a rather sad attempt to mischaracterize my argument.

Also, it's my understanding that "recorded" implies that the authors of the gospels were there to witness the things they wrote about. Since we don't actually know who wrote the gospels...we cannot affirm this. What we do have are anonymous author(s) revising the religious story of their messiah....well after these events supposedly happened. Let's not pretend that anyone was there to record these "events"...anyone who was there and had such an opportunity decided not to record these events (including the jews and Romans within these stories). Any actual recording of these events would be the archeological find of the century...but, alas, after more than a millennia of searching, no such recordings have ever been found.

I get it.

I really don't think that you do.

You're an anti-theist who may have read a handful of biographies.

Irrelevant. We aren't discussing anti-theism or biographies.

You presuppose the impossibility of the supernatural and you therefore try to make all of this fit into your naturalistic worldview, no matter how contrived and ad-hoc your explanations get.

Nope...not even close. I'm fully open to the existence of the "supernatural" (whatever you mean by that) just as soon as someone presents some evidence for it. I'm not holding my breath though...we both know you don't have any.

You at the present are not willing to have your views changed by the data, but rather seek to have the data align with your worldviews. As such you cannot be objective. And as such I am limited as to what I am prepared to say to you.

What data? You seem upset that I don't lend your religion's mythology any more credence than I do any other religion's mythology.

You haven't even told me what the gospels are a history of yet....it's the one question I needed you to answer before I can give you examples of bias that reduces their credibility. What's the problem? Did you think about it and realize that the gospels don't resemble any kind of historical document?

What are the gospels a history of? What is the "history" that you believe they accurately relate?

 

[anonymous person]

This is classic intellectual dishonesty in action...everyone get an eye full. My claim was that the bias inherent in the gospels made them unreliable as historical documents. I merely pointed out that by labeling them the "gospels" the anonymous author(s) have thrown objectivity out the window at the very start. They are believers and they want you (the reader) to believe as well.



Again...blatantly mischaracterized my argument. See above.




Citation please? I don't want to comment on the wrong reference...so include whatever you're referring to from here on out please.



The gospels are written with the intention of "selling" the reader on the divinity of Jesus...the answer here is rather obvious.



I didn't claim that every single line of the gospels is ridden with bias...I merely claimed that the bias that is in the gospels makes them unreliable. Once again, this is a rather sad attempt to mischaracterize my argument.

Also, it's my understanding that "recorded" implies that the authors of the gospels were there to witness the things they wrote about. Since we don't actually know who wrote the gospels...we cannot affirm this. What we do have are anonymous author(s) revising the religious story of their messiah....well after these events supposedly happened. Let's not pretend that anyone was there to record these "events"...anyone who was there and had such an opportunity decided not to record these events (including the jews and Romans within these stories). Any actual recording of these events would be the archeological find of the century...but, alas, after more than a millennia of searching, no such recordings have ever been found.



I really don't think that you do.



Irrelevant. We aren't discussing anti-theism or biographies.



Nope...not even close. I'm fully open to the existence of the "supernatural" (whatever you mean by that) just as soon as someone presents some evidence for it. I'm not holding my breath though...we both know you don't have any.



What data? You seem upset that I don't lend your religion's mythology any more credence than I do any other religion's mythology.

You haven't even told me what the gospels are a history of yet....it's the one question I needed you to answer before I can give you examples of bias that reduces their credibility. What's the problem? Did you think about it and realize that the gospels don't resemble any kind of historical document?

What are the gospels a history of? What is the "history" that you believe they accurately relate?

The gospels are narratives of the life, teachings, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ.

Believing something to be true does not make one an unreliable transmitter of the accounts they hold to be true.

If that were the case then I could dismiss everything you say as unreliable on the basis alone that you believe what you are saying is true.

You will have to demonstrate that we have good reasons to think the authors of the gospels and any other document that records the events surrounding the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus that corroborate the gospels, were unreliable transmitters of truth.

Saying they were biased is not enough. I can wholeheartedly agree with you that they had a bias. You are biased, I am biased, everyone has a bias. The question is not if there was a bias, but if the bias was justified. If what they recorded actually happened, they should have had a bias.

If you saw a man perform miracles, give sight to the blind, cause the lame to walk, raise the dead and then be crucified buried and then alive after all this having fulfilled the things He had said would happen before they even happened and you were not offended by this but wanted all men to know the good news that their sins had been born by Christ on the cross and that a way had been made for them to have a relationship with God, then you would shout this good news from the mountain tops and from every rooftop so that people would know.

You wouldn't sit around depressed with your mouth shut with your hands in the air saying, "it is hopeless to speak of these great things, for no one will believe me because they will think I am biased!"

That is simply absurd.

You spend a great deal of time here with what little hope you have attempting to convince people you have the truth. How much more would these men and women who were eyewitnesses of the most important events to have ever occurred in human history be all to eager to tell of what they had seen?

You approach the gospels as if they are unreliable and have no trouble finding reasons that sit well with you that support that conclusion.

I know they are reliable and see through your question begging.

I pray you meditate and examine your presuppositions and ask whether or not you really have good reasons to hold them.

You still have yet to provide one example of an instance where an author of a new testament book/letter has a bias that prevents him from accurately writing about what he writes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you presuppose the impossibility of the events recorded in the gospels?

Do you presuppose that the events reported happened exactly as they were reported?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The gospels are narratives of the life, teachings, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ.

Believing something to be true does not make one an unreliable transmitter of the accounts they hold to be true.

I don't recall Ana claiming that "believing something to be true makes someone an unreliable transmitter of the accounts they hold to be true." Could you try not being disingenuous?

You will have to demonstrate that we have good reasons to think the authors of the gospels and any other document that records the events surrounding the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus that corroborate the gospels, were unreliable transmitters of truth.

The dead apparently rose from their graves and greeted people in the streets. What other records corroborate that gospel claim?

Saying they were biased is not enough. I can wholeheartedly agree with you that they had a bias. You are biased, I am biased, everyone has a bias. The question is not if there was a bias, but if the bias was justified. If what they recorded actually happened, they should have had a bias.

That's an "if" you'll need to demonstrate. But you're never in the mood to do so, so I don't expect we'll see anything further on this point from you.

I know they are reliable

How do you know that?

I pray you meditate and examine your presuppositions and ask whether or not you really have good reasons to hold them.

Would you do the same? If you were shown that your reasons for holding this position were inadequate, what would you do?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The gospels are narratives of the life, teachings, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ.

Believing something to be true does not make one an unreliable transmitter of the accounts they hold to be true.

If that were the case then I could dismiss everything you say as unreliable on the basis alone that you believe what you are saying is true.

You will have to demonstrate that we have good reasons to think the authors of the gospels and any other document that records the events surrounding the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus that corroborate the gospels, were unreliable transmitters of truth.

Saying they were biased is not enough. I can wholeheartedly agree with you that they had a bias. You are biased, I am biased, everyone has a bias. The question is not if there was a bias, but if the bias was justified. If what they recorded actually happened, they should have had a bias.

If you saw a man perform miracles, give sight to the blind, cause the lame to walk, raise the dead and then be crucified buried and then alive after all this having fulfilled the things He had said would happen before they even happened and you were not offended by this but wanted all men to know the good news that their sins had been born by Christ on the cross and that a way had been made for them to have a relationship with God, then you would shout this good news from the mountain tops and from every rooftop so that people would know.

You wouldn't sit around depressed with your mouth shut with your hands in the air saying, "it is hopeless to speak of these great things, for no one will believe me because they will think I am biased!"

That is simply absurd.

You spend a great deal of time here with what little hope you have attempting to convince people you have the truth. How much more would these men and women who were eyewitnesses of the most important events to have ever occurred in human history be all to eager to tell of what they had seen?

You approach the gospels as if they are unreliable and have no trouble finding reasons that sit well with you that support that conclusion.

I know they are reliable and see through your question begging.

I pray you meditate and examine your presuppositions and ask whether or not you really have good reasons to hold them.

You still have yet to provide one example of an instance where an author of a new testament book/letter has a bias that prevents him from accurately writing about what he writes.

Your utter ignorance of how the gospels were written is telling. These aren't four stories written by eyewitnesses or four guys who went around interviewing eyewitnesses and writing down their accounts...these are collections of stories about Jesus that were told and retold by early christians.

It would be decades later before the first gospel is theorized to be written...as far as I know, we don't have any copies that old. We have no way of knowing how accurately this written gospel matched the stories told by early christian communities...but we do know they split into several distinct groups according to these oral traditions (including groups that didn't believe Jesus existed in the flesh...only as a spirit) and these groups competed with each other for legitimacy. They added to their stories, dropped other stories...and generally with each passing year, as these stories get passed between different christian communities...they get added to and altered...by christians.

You do realize that in the earliest versions of the gospels...there is no resurrection? You realize that Jesus isn't considered a fully divine being until the second century...don't you?

The gospels weren't canonized until the 400s if I'm not mistaken. The reason that four were chosen, out of many more, is because there are four directions on earth (NSEW) and "four winds". Doesn't exactly sound like they were chosen for their historical accuracy....does it?

I'm not saying that it's impossible that some events depicted in the gospels couldn't have happened...I'm saying that it's impossible to separate these historical fragments from the fiction because of...bias. There's really no telling what parts are real (if any) because of the way they were put together.

You've got one group that gets their gospel written down...this gets preached on, passed along....then another group adds to and subtracts from that gospel....they preached on it, passed it along...and it gets changed again.

You're right that they absolutely believed what they were committing to writing was the truth...so did each christian who then altered that truth to fit what he believed was true....and that how these documents evolved to the point where they were canonized. Each writer's personal bias altered the documents bit by bit until we have what you know as the gospels today.

So what would we expect if this was the process of writing the gospels? We would expect them to differ in many ways...as the idea of Jesus grows more powerful/divine, we would expect the gospels to reflect that.

There are many examples of this in the gospels...which I'd be glad to share if you like...but you'll be doing yourself a big favor if you first read up on what modern scholarship thinks of how the gospels were written. The notion that you have of how they were written is so outdated that no one really takes it seriously anymore.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The gospels are narratives of the life, teachings, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ.

Believing something to be true does not make one an unreliable transmitter of the accounts they hold to be true.

If that were the case then I could dismiss everything you say as unreliable on the basis alone that you believe what you are saying is true.

You will have to demonstrate that we have good reasons to think the authors of the gospels and any other document that records the events surrounding the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus that corroborate the gospels, were unreliable transmitters of truth.

Saying they were biased is not enough. I can wholeheartedly agree with you that they had a bias. You are biased, I am biased, everyone has a bias. The question is not if there was a bias, but if the bias was justified. If what they recorded actually happened, they should have had a bias.

If you saw a man perform miracles, give sight to the blind, cause the lame to walk, raise the dead and then be crucified buried and then alive after all this having fulfilled the things He had said would happen before they even happened and you were not offended by this but wanted all men to know the good news that their sins had been born by Christ on the cross and that a way had been made for them to have a relationship with God, then you would shout this good news from the mountain tops and from every rooftop so that people would know.

You wouldn't sit around depressed with your mouth shut with your hands in the air saying, "it is hopeless to speak of these great things, for no one will believe me because they will think I am biased!"

That is simply absurd.

You spend a great deal of time here with what little hope you have attempting to convince people you have the truth. How much more would these men and women who were eyewitnesses of the most important events to have ever occurred in human history be all to eager to tell of what they had seen?

You approach the gospels as if they are unreliable and have no trouble finding reasons that sit well with you that support that conclusion.

I know they are reliable and see through your question begging.

I pray you meditate and examine your presuppositions and ask whether or not you really have good reasons to hold them.

You still have yet to provide one example of an instance where an author of a new testament book/letter has a bias that prevents him from accurately writing about what he writes.

I should've pointed out in my last post, the gospels aren't eyewitness accounts.

Here's an excerpt from an article on the "historical reliability" of the gospels. It's by a Matthew Ferguson, a doctoral candidate in the classics...

"The genre of ancient historical prose has key features that are crucial to understanding which works belong to the category and why they are more trustworthy than sources that do not. It is not enough for a text to simply talk about things that took place in the past, even when the content deals with real people and locations. A historical text must investigate and probe these matters, discussing the research process involved, so that it does not merely provide a story, but a plausible interpretation of what took place. …

The main point to take away from [my] analysis of the [ten] criteria above is that the Gospels certainly do not measure up to the high historiography of antiquity. Many of my Classics professors who specialize in such texts, when they read the Gospels, comment on how much more rudimentary and story-like their narratives are compared to the researched and analytical characteristics of historical writing. Even Luke only has a few brief lines at the beginning that mimic historical prose, before jumping into pure hagiography like the other Gospels.

Ancient historical texts are some of my favorite works from antiquity for their sophisticated writing style, elaborate research, and intellectual rigor in investigating past events. I cannot say the same for the Gospels, although I do think they provide interesting symbolism and allegories as novels, and are also complex works of religious scripture. After analyzing the Gospels under the historiographical criteria that I discuss above, however, they must be placed in a different literary genre from the actual historical works of antiquity.

A final note about modern historical methodology is that the ancient authors of these historical prose [works], who demonstrate their research, have independent corroboration, discuss their methodology, and reach conclusions through critical investigation, should generally be trusted, until proven otherwise. In contrast, ancient novels and religious texts, such as the Gospels, that are packed full of legends and religious propaganda, should not be given the benefit of the doubt, until there is good reason for overcoming their overall unreliability in order to trust a specific detail. I do think that there are some precious kernels of truth in at least the Synoptic Gospels, but they are few and far between."