The Historicity of the Gospels

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
And yet the earliest complete manuscript in existence does not correlate with your assertion.

The earliest found is in the 4th century; in Greek, and version Septuagint. Fragmented text exists as early as the second century. But again, are very small pieces.

Prior to this, all we have to place such hopes upon, is oral tradition. And one can only guess what happens to a story told hundreds/thousands of times over.
That's not true, the only reason we have the Dead Sea Scrolls is because they were preserved in nearly ideal conditions. When a copy of a letter or book was received in a church it was read to the church regularly and copies were made. The reason being papyrus scrolls were notoriously perishable, which is why they were not as carefully preserved early as they were by the fifth century. You guys keep saying 'we', like Christians are somehow limited to your opinions about the source of the New Testament witness. They were and are a living witness that have been in the custody of the Christian community and the Christian church never relied on oral tradition with regards to the canon of Scripture. As far as I can tell you just made that one up.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The preservation of Old Testament scriptures is irrelevant to how the gospels were received in that period. B
Actually as @mark kennedy pointed out the early NT Christians were Jews and hailed from the Pharisees and Scribes. They would handle the inspired texts of the NT the same as TaNaKh. We know from the NT writings the OT is extensively quoted and as such treated as the Word of God.

OT quotes in the NT

Parallel Passages in New Testament Quoted from Old Testament :: Part I - Study Resources

Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament

List of 300 Old Testament quotes in New Testament

Old Testament in the New Testament, the - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Online
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So let's run with your assertion and see how this pans out...

The only ones recording or writing of antiquity, were people whom believed that people rose from the dead?
What's to assert. I gave you actual historical fact.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
This is telling. I'm sorry but you are exhibiting a lack of knowledge of what extent manuscripts consist of.

The internal evidence and early external evidence is what determines the date of the NT books. The manuscript fragments and textual class assist in dating the circulation which for the NT would be a fragment from John dated in Koine Greek to 120 AD. Which given John lived longer would be about 25 years from penning the autograph. Which means the Gospel was in wide circulation during that timeframe.

Do you have any non Christian documents you would like to share from that era or earlier which has even a close second to the NT manuscript record? Answer you won't find one. That's why your secular history which you trust is as good as 10th century monastics and the few manuscripts they had of works of antiquity. As opposed to that 10s of thousands for the NT.

Check out the meaning of internal and external evidence for the NT books. Considering the NT books are quoted in early church writings in the first century shows these books already in circulation. As the church grew in the 2nd century and persecution decreased the quoting of the NT explodes throughout the Empire from Rome to Greece to Palestine to Egypt.

No, it is your response which is telling, and typical among believers whom present conformation bias....

You have once again failed to even address or acknowledge my many observations. My points are blatantly simple...

From the time something 'happened', anything really, to the time in which it was first written about, is the key. In this very case, lets even grant absolutely everything you've said, without any contest what-so-ever... okay...

We still have decades of unfettered oral tradition. Meaning, thousands of retold stories, before anything is written to paper for later recopy. My points...

1. How many times has the story been retold, prior to first being written to paper? Answer.... 100's/1,000's.

2. When stories get retold over and over, do levels of embellishment manifest? Yes, most certainly. Especially in the case of claims for supernatural events told exclusively by people whom are already believers.

3. Do the embellishments increase, as further documents get written? Yes. And in this case, it is very telling, when looking at the chronological occurrences, and increasing progression of supernatural claims from Matthew to John.

So again, it does not matter that prior to a few centuries ago, ONLY Catholics wrote of antiquity. It does not matter that the Catholics were the most educated. None of these acknowledgements validate anything regarding claimed 'eyewitness' events decades/centuries prior.

The only way such events would be substantiated as such, would be from multiple corroborated sightings reported and recorded in history, and NOT just from the bias publication itself (whom was not even there) ;) Being educated and writing stories does not corroborate eyewitness attestation in any fashion. The only way such an event could possibly be verified, is if contemporaneous reportings of such are provided, from an unbias perspective. Regardless of the reasons, these are the facts.

So once again, we really have no actual eyewitness attestation. At least if we did, one could then analyze it, like we can with recent mass alien sightings.... But we do not even have this much.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Speak for yourself, the churches knew their own sacred writings then and we know them now.



That's normal text variation and the Dead Sea Scrolls are not a complete Old Testament, and some of the scrolls while authentic have some issues. It's the living witness of the Masoretic Text that is preferred, although the Dead Sea scrolls did prove to be of enormous worth in verifying that the Masoretic text underwent little change.
Yes and LOL notice the source. The Skeptic Files.

I think we need a contemporaneous source for this. :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We still have decades of unfettered oral tradition. Meaning, thousands of retold stories, before anything is written to paper for later recopy. My points...
Actually we don’t. The epistles of Paul, Peter, John, Jude and James puts this assertion down the in flames.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
What's to assert. I gave you actual historical fact.

You have again dodged my question.

So it's true that the only people whom wrote of such events were already Catholic? Meaning, they already were believers in people rising from the dead. This further confirms conformation bias. Even if they were 100% correct about mundane historical accounts, how might this validate claimed eyewitness supernatural claimed events, in which there exists no contemporaneous reports?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So once again, we really have no actual eyewitness attestation. At least if we did, one could then analyze it, like we can with recent mass alien sightings.... But we do not even have this much.
Again you must not believe in any history.

The most solid of ancient history is (1) about Christ and His followers aka His church and (2) the ancient works of empires and western history in the hands of Christians. A thank you is in order.

You are and everyone in the West and most of the near East are the products of the church catholic (little c) and don’t know it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Actually we don’t. The epistles of Paul, Peter, John, Jude and James puts this assertion down the in flames.

Saul/Paul comprises of 40+% of the NT, and is not part of the 4 gospels ;) Furthermore, his claim is of a vision while walking in the desert. No one knows who originally wrote 'John', for starters.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No, it is your response which is telling, and typical among believers whom present conformation bias....

You have once again failed to even address or acknowledge my many observations. My points are blatantly simple...

From the time something 'happened', anything really, to the time in which it was first written about, is the key. In this very case, lets even grant absolutely everything you've said, without any contest what-so-ever... okay...

We still have decades of unfettered oral tradition. Meaning, thousands of retold stories, before anything is written to paper for later recopy. My points...

1. How many times has the story been retold, prior to first being written to paper? Answer.... 100's/1,000's.

2. When stories get retold over and over, do levels of embellishment manifest? Yes, most certainly. Especially in the case of claims for supernatural events told exclusively by people whom are already believers.

3. Do the embellishments increase, as further documents get written? Yes. And in this case, it is very telling, when looking at the chronological occurrences, and increasing progression of supernatural claims from Matthew to John.

So again, it does not matter that prior to a few centuries ago, ONLY Catholics wrote of antiquity. It does not matter that the Catholics were the most educated. None of these acknowledgements validate anything regarding claimed 'eyewitness' events decades/centuries prior.

The only way such events would be substantiated as such, would be from multiple corroborated sightings reported and recorded in history, and NOT just from the bias publication itself (whom was not even there) ;) Being educated and writing stories does not corroborate eyewitness attestation in any fashion. The only way such an event could possibly be verified, is if contemporaneous reportings of such are provided, from an unbias perspective. Regardless of the reasons, these are the facts.

So once again, we really have no actual eyewitness attestation. At least if we did, one could then analyze it, like we can with recent mass alien sightings.... But we do not even have this much.
Your assuming that someone memorized or fabricated these documents long after the fact, that's simply not true. Some of these letters, if not all, had very specific recipients in the first century who would read them to the church and make copies. This was commonly practiced among the Jews, with synagogues flourishing around the Mediterranean basin, the demand for the sacred texts of the Hebrews was at a premium. These scrolls were prolifically copied and dispersed and all copies came with specific information with regards to the exact number of words and such, it was a very old Levitical tradition. The earliest converts to Christianity were Jewish and a number of the were Levites who were charged with the responsibility of preserving the scrolls with meticulous care. This tradition bleed over into the Christian community as the Apostles aged and letters and books began to circulate.

Your making bold assertions with zero positive evidence, you really don't think Christians study this sort of thing? I guess you would have to appreciate the legacy of our spiritual ancestors the ancient Hebrews as they conducted themselves in the first century. You would have to appreciate the fact that papyrus was perishable so the step wise logic of making a nearly exact copy was foremost in the mind of any scribe, who dared not trifle with the sacred content. You would have to appreciate the community of believers, Jewish and Christian, who exercised every care and precaution to keep these sacred texts with a deep sense of accountability to God and future generations.

It was rare, if it even existed, for Christians to depend on oral tradition. The ancient Hebrews certainly are well known for the fidelity with regards to their sacred writings. You should learn something of our history before making such general and obviously flawed statements regarding how the church preserved the Apostolic writings.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Saul/Paul comprises of 40+% of the NT, and is not part of the 4 gospels ;) Furthermore, his claim is of a vision while walking in the desert. No one knows who originally wrote 'John', for starters.
We know who wrote the Gospel according to John, the Apostle John did. The church would not accept some random scroll that had not been in the possession of the church it's entire history. There were some serious questions regarding the canon of Scripture, who wrote John's gospel and epistles wasn't one of them until a largely unbelieving secular world started casting aspersions with regards to authenticity in fairly modern times. The church knew their own Scriptures then and we know them now.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Again you must not believe in any history.

The most solid of ancient history is (1) about Christ and His followers aka His church and (2) the ancient works of empires and western history in the hands of Christians. A thank you is in order.

You are and everyone in the West and most of the near East are the products of the church catholic (little c) and don’t know it.

Again, there is a huge difference between claims of someone living, doing stuff, and then dying. It is a completely new thing to assert the supernatural. Especially when the only way to corroborate such an event is by EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. Yes, the same as alien sightings, Big Foot sightings, ghost sightings, etc... Without such a method, you have documented hearsay from educated writers reporting what others believed. So I'm going to keep granting you more and more without contest...

We can give thanks to the Catholics, for without them, we have no ancient history. Therefore, everything they wrote must now be true, even when it is of 'raising the dead'. We owe them that much ;)
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes and LOL notice the source. The Skeptic Files.

I think we need a contemporaneous source for this. :)
Something a little more scholarly might be advisable. We wouldn't want bias to taint our opinions concerning history would we? :)
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No one knows who originally wrote 'John', for starters.
Wrong.

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the discipleand interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Again, there is a huge difference between claims of someone living, doing stuff, and then dying. It is a completely new thing to assert the supernatural. Especially when the only way to corroborate such an event is by EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. Yes, the same as alien sightings, Big Foot sightings, ghost sightings, etc... Without such a method, you have documented hearsay from educated writers reporting what others believed. So I'm going to keep granting you more and more without contest...

We can give thanks to the Catholics, for without them, we have no ancient history. Therefore, everything they wrote must now be true, even when it is of 'raising the dead'. We owe them that much ;)
Catholicism isn't really all that ancient and their history is pretty well established if you care to investigate. I don't know where you get the comparison to Big Foot because it sounds like frivolous mockery to me, you might have something to support it but I have yet to see it. Sounds more like rhetorical satire then anything else, which is really not a good basis for a philosophy of history.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Again, there is a huge difference between claims of someone living, doing stuff, and then dying. It is a completely new thing to assert the supernatural. Especially when the only way to corroborate such an event is by EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. Yes, the same as alien sightings, Big Foot sightings, ghost sightings, etc... Without such a method, you have documented hearsay from educated writers reporting what others believed. So I'm going to keep granting you more and more without contest...

We can give thanks to the Catholics, for without them, we have no ancient history. Therefore, everything they wrote must now be true, even when it is of 'raising the dead'. We owe them that much ;)
What you miss is the supernatural acts of Immanuel God with us Jesus Christ is history. Sure like any historical claim one must examine the evidence. But the evidence is there.

To dismiss the evidence or impeach the witnesses is not being investigative or inquisitive. If just shows you don’t want to deal with it.

Which Paul makes clear why humans do so. Romans 1:18-20
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What you miss is the supernatural acts of Immanuel God with us Jesus Christ is history. Sure like any historical claim one must examine the evidence. But the evidence is there.

To dismiss the evidence or impeach the witnesses is not being investigative or inquisitive. If just shows you don’t want to deal with it.

Which Paul makes clear why humans do so. Romans 1:18-20
Yes and Peter, who actually wrote 2 Peter, attests to in his epistle:

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)
We don't have eye witnesses? That's strange to hear considering no modern scholar, secular or Christian, doubts that Paul wrote Galatians and at least six other of his epistles.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Your assuming that someone memorized or fabricated these documents long after the fact, that's simply not true. Some of these letters, if not all, had very specific recipients in the first century who would read them to the church and make copies.

I have to stop you right here. I assume no such thing. Stories could begin immediately. My point is they are told, over and over again. As the legendary tales grow, they become vastly inflated. After enough time passes, the story hardly resembles the original story, which may have also been embellished. By the time an educated person writes it to paper, they write what is in common circulation at the time they hear of such a tale. Their IQ could be 180. But this is of no relevancy. Some of the smartest people on the planet practice beliefs opposed to Christianity. So again, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Furthermore, the number of believers, or people whom convert, has no bearing or bases to it's truth claims.

As stated prior... Take Mark 16:8. This is originally where the story ends. So why the later addition of 9-20? This further supports the conclusion of legendary tales, which manifest and grow over time. Then fast forward a few decades to the claims of 'John'.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
What you miss is the supernatural acts of Immanuel God with us Jesus Christ is history. Sure like any historical claim one must examine the evidence. But the evidence is there.

To dismiss the evidence or impeach the witnesses is not being investigative or inquisitive. If just shows you don’t want to deal with it.

Which Paul makes clear why humans do so. Romans 1:18-20

LOL. Or maybe, just maybe, you want it to be true, to a fault. If I did not want to deal with it, I would not be presenting my many observations, in which you flagrantly ignore. So who is the one demonstrating 'not wanting to deal with it?'
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
LOL. Or maybe, just maybe, you want it to be true, to a fault. If I did not want to deal with it, I would not be presenting my many observations, in which you flagrantly ignore. So who is the one demonstrating 'not wanting to deal with it?'
I’m not ignoring your many observations. With me, I must be convinced your premises are valid before I proceed. They aren’t so your posts failed the basic Socratic scrutiny.
 
Upvote 0