Gospel accounts reliability

[Halbhh]

Who cares? I'm just testing them like you are testing the Bible/Gospels. All good.

And both of those borrow extensively from the Bible...so they are going to say more than a few good things, just from that.

 

[Halbhh]

< shrugs > I don't remember.

I see. That's why you wrote to me something I clearly already know. (if you have memory problems though, please let me know! I've learned to adjust to a couple of people at church who tend to forget things I've said to them face to face)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I see. That's why you wrote to me something I clearly already know. (if you have memory problems though, please let me know! I've learned to adjust to a couple of people at church who tend to forget things I've said to them face to face)

I did not try to remember it, nor did I necessarily think you did not clearly already know. Thanks tho.

If something was in the post /op/ you wanted to remind me of, good. Like bible references, which don't render on the screen many times, especially on phones, it is better I think to spell it all out - quote the whole reference. Thanks again !

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This was and is for everyone seeking the Truth, for all readers who are loving God and are called according to His Purpose.
The Father when HE GRANTS UNDERSTANDING, does not do so in error nor imperfectly.
His children KNOW spiritually the TRUTH, as HE Grants this, as written.
Particularly concerning HIS WORD: HE is Responsible for ALL of HIS WORD, and He Guards His Word, as He Says.

btw, fyi, fwiw, this looks like a more accurate way >>>
Luke 1:3
KJ21
it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.

i.e. God is Right, His Word is True, Inspired Fully by Him, not relying nor resting on man/men/scholars at all. He is the Source, the Truth, the Breathing of His Word Accompished and Revealed His Way.

 

[Halbhh]

I did not try to remember it, nor did I necessarily think you did not clearly already know. Thanks tho.

If something was in the post /op/ you wanted to remind me of, good. Like bible references, which don't render on the screen many times, especially on phones, it is better I think to spell it all out - quote the whole reference. Thanks again !

That this is the apologetics section for non believers. And the OP post is for people who do not yet believe, and who question everything routinely -- the type of people that will even question or assume there can be transcription errors, for example...

It's not at all for people who are already believers and have learned scripture thoroughly and tested things Christ said. That's a whole different section than this section.

 

[Halbhh]

Luke is an ancient history and isn't really exceptional. And as far as ancient history goes, it's a mixture of things that are credible, and things that are legends.

The fact there are two accounts of Judas's death that are at odds with each other in the details shows that there are legendary accounts at work in the text. The author of Luke obviously used a variety of sources and redacted them into one narrative.

Believe that if you want about Luke's account.

I didn't believe anything from any of the accounts. I just tested the propositions.

As it happens, I just wrote a summary post about how I tested propositions from the accounts.

How I tested some instructions (more than a few):
Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

 

[cvanwey]

This post/thread is about 1 narrow question:

How can someone who doesn't already believe or hasn't yet tested Christ's words...try to have a preliminary estimation on whether the accounts written down in the gospels are likely to be generally accurate (accurate in all significant ways that have real consequence)?

Instead of you just reeling off your set answer, tho, I'd like to show you something really quite amazing, and not so well known, below.

First a very brief general information (the amazing thing is later): a mainstream consensus view is that the Gospel of Mark was written down in the range of 66-70 AD:
"Mark probably dates from AD 66–70." Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

Which puts that about 35 years or so after Christ's crucifixion.

A) Thought experiment...

If the Rigveda was written within 25 years of all it's claim(s), would you give this book of assertions any more clout than you do at present? If the answer is no, or likely not, then the above noted observation is likely just as useless to you, as to many of the current 'unbelieving audience', for which you are attempting to engage.

B) Thought experiment, playing off of @BigV ...

If anyone is to claim validity of the above attestation, then the Mormon account for the golden tablets must be well established as fact, as sworn and signed testimony exists for witnessing the golden plates, as Joseph Smith, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith were all signed in real time. By any standard of evidence, this account possesses much more corroborated eyewitness testimony than any competing New Testament claimed eyewitness account. And yet, the Christian will reject the claimed eyewitness tenets of Mormonism.

C) Thought experiment...

What about unsolved mass UFO sightings? (i.e. - June 1, 1853: Luminous Objects Hover Over Tennessee College Campus, April 17, 1897: Purported UFO crash in Texas, February 25, 1942: The Battle of Los Angeles, January 7, 1948: Saucer Appears Over Kentucky, to only name three) They are all unsolved from eyewitness accounts long ago. But here's the difference... The reports were actually taken from first hand eyewitnesses whom claimed to see the events in question. So by this standard alone, not only do extra terrestrials exist, but also have multiple eyewitness conformation of the same exact event simultaneously. And since no one can provide evidence of absence, all claims to extra terrestrial life must be true.

D) Though experiment...

Why does no one outside of Hinduism accept or even acknowledge Sirdi Sai Baba's claimed miracles? Under the definition of eyewitness testimony, many first hand accounts have actually corroborated the claimed miraculous events. By Christian based standards, more witnessed this proclaimed prophet's miracles collaboratively, verses the vast majority of Biblical claims.

As they told others their memories, many listeners would have learned what all the various verbal accounts agreed on -- the widely agreed details from among the dozens or even hundreds of direct witnesses.

But though quite significant, that's not the most interesting thing of all yet to me personally tho. This below is, to me personally.

The first way I learned about this thing below was just as a clue.

A long time college English professor was relating that there were a portion of students that seemed to just remember things in a way that far surpassed other students -- while other students remembered 50% or 60% of stuff right, these individuals would get 100% right.... (at first one might imagine they are only-good-at-one-thing savants, but...that's not what turns out; see below!)

She'd observed this odd fact over time, that in classes she'd notice students that just seemed to have this perfect memory, year after year, individual students.

I got curious. (just pure curiosity; I've long read in various sciences, including psychological research)

Searching later to learn more on it, I found this convenient (not long) video from the long running CBS program 60 Minutes that helps show the phenomena via an top academic researcher investigating it, and one can look up the research also --

(you get to see the researcher and some of his testing in this video also)

This appears irrelevant for more than 1 reason:

1. If God was the providing influence, or even more, God was the complete inspiring information provider for all text, then the human author is merely nothing more than a 'ghost writer' for God.

2. Whom/who actually wrote 'Mark'?

3. How do you know this individual(s) had photographic memory(s)?

4. And even if he/they did, how do you reconcile the verses between Mark 16:8 verses Mark 16:9-20?

etc............

 

[Halbhh]

A) Thought experiment...

If the Rigveda was written within 25 years of all it's claim(s), would you give this book of assertions any more clout than you do at present? If the answer is no, or likely not, then the above noted observation is likely just as useless to you, as to many of the current 'unbelieving audience', for which you are attempting to engage.

Ok, I know you'd prefer to just say your own theory instead, quickly, even though I asked specifically to really consider a new thing first. But, I'll just assume you needed someone to talk with, and try to accomodate.

I did not assume the accounts were of value, but only wondered if something in them might have any value. Again, I did not assume the propositions/instructions were meaningful or better or any such. Did not. Hearing that?

So, you are kinda giving here an objection misdirected to the wrong person, see?

I thought something pretty different:

That maybe there might be one or 2 good ideas, possibly. Or maybe not.

Maybe they'd all be wrong. But of course being all wrong wouldn't be more likely. It also would be only a possibility. Nothing more.

Why even read at all then? Because it is a well known wisdom tradition, like The Tao, for instance, and I read those in that decade (very wide reading) just to glean ideas to try out.

I merely read to find out the ideas so I could test them.

Did you hear that?

I'll pause here. You don't need 1,000 words from me, but instead it's better to at least hear 1 thing correctly.

 

[cvanwey]

I merely read to find out the ideas so I could test them.

Did you hear that?

I'll pause here. You don't need 1,000 words from me, but instead it's better to at least hear 1 thing correctly.

Let's cut to the chase then....

Your primary test, is in regards to Matthew 7:12, right? This is one of the main reasons you state you are a Christian, right?

 

[Halbhh]

Let's cut to the chase then....

Your primary test, is in regards to Matthew 7:12, right? This is one of the main reasons you state you are a Christian, right?

Just so happens I've got a nice summary post that answers that, (since it was more than just 1 or 2 propositions that I tested, and more than just 5 or 10 times, etc.). There are a lot of questions that should come up, and I've summarized a lot briefly:

(post #254, a summary of what I tested and how I tested in the first 10 years or so)
Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

 

[cvanwey]

Just so happens I've got a nice summary post that answers that, (since it was more than just 1 or 2 propositions that I tested, and more than just 5 or 10 times, etc.). There are a lot of questions that should come up, and I've summarized a lot briefly:

(post #254, a summary of what I tested and how I tested in the first 10 years or so)
Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

Well then... I directly addressed your points in the OP. If you care not to address them now, then maybe modify your OP, to state the real reason(s) you believe. If your OP 'points' are actually of little concern, admit that, and I will then address this new one.

Your move...

 

[Halbhh]

I directly addressed your points in the OP. If you care not to address them now, then maybe modify your OP, to state the real reason(s) you believe.

For important topics, 1 thing at a time is best, right? When the topic is involved. Don't you agree?

Would you prefer I address: your questions about "your points in the OP."

or

"state the real reason(s) you believe."

Which?

Neither is a small trivial thing, in my view. Both are potentially involved discussions (or can be).

Since for me these are independent, unrelated even, which is it you really want to ask the most, or first? (I definitely don't have faith because I think Mark is probably pretty accurate: it's not the basis for my faith; though it's a somewhat related, and definitely a meaningful question in and of itself)

 

[cvanwey]

For important topics, 1 thing at a time is best, right? When the topic is involved. Don't you agree?

Would you prefer I address: your questions about "your points in the OP."

or

"state the real reason(s) you believe."

Which?

Neither is a small trivial thing, in my view. Both are potentially involved discussions (or can be).

Since for me these are independent, unrelated even, which is it you really want to ask the most, or first? (I definitely don't have faith because I think Mark is probably pretty accurate: it's not the basis for my faith; though it's a somewhat related, and definitely a meaningful question in and of itself)

Okay, if it's not related to your belief, then let's just scrap it. It certainly begs other questions, but I'll just shelf them, for now...

Even if I refute the OP points, it won't matter. You'll still believe, just the same....

So, I guess we can just move on to the biggest reason 'why' you believe. You stated you can test it, and use Matthew 7:12.

So please tell me more about your testing, and why this testing verifies the claimed truth in 'Jesus as the Messiah'?

 

[Halbhh]

1. If God was the providing influence, or even more, God was the complete inspiring information provider for all text, then the human author is merely nothing more than a 'ghost writer' for God.

2. Whom/who actually wrote 'Mark'?

3. How do you know this individual(s) had photographic memory(s)?

4. And even if he/they did, how do you reconcile the verses between Mark 16:8 verses Mark 16:9-20?

(Just as I'm finishing this post I see you responded to the other, and I'll respond to that unrelated question in another thread)

Here's something very pragmatic, before I address these: It's just impractical to chase down every possible objection either one of us can think of simultaneously, because of the geometric effect: each one topic can potentially open 2 or 3 or 4 more new topics, and it would be possible in just a few posts to end up talking about even 7 or 11 different topics, and then you end up with a collapse of discussion or fail to really get to the bottom of some key thing that really is the most meaningful.

Right?

So, when I answer, let's do a hard thing, if you are willing.

Pick the 1 most key issue, only, for the moment, and focus on that, alone.

In order to get to get somewhere on that 1 question/topic, past merely raising objections to each other. Both of us are able to raise 5 or 10 objections at will to any post saying a few things of course. (if I haven't done that, I can assure you I could, lol) We should instead attempt to narrow in on 1 key thing at a time, if we can.

If we can. Worth a try, yes?
(that's a question: do you agree?)

Let me try to pick among these 4 not the easiest to dismiss, but the most significant, instead. Of course, you might not agree which is the most significant. Maybe I should do a very quick answer on all 4 and then you pick which one matters the most. Ok?

1. Yes, that's a common view of many. It's thought that God would help the person writing down, or the group (it can be a group, writing together, possibly)

2. Really doesn't matter at all if it was person X or person Y. To me, it only matters if the things prove to work when one does them.

3. The OP is about this very topic: how to know from a variety of witnesses what is correct, and then also the interesting fact that some people really do remember stuff from their experiences better than most people (that really is an interesting video. Did you watch it?). That last is so interesting, though not needed at all. It's just yet another way that some of the witnesses might gain extra credibility among the listeners by their clear ability to remember things in astonishing detail. They would stand out. They are not necessary though!

4. ah, you are asking about what might be a later addition to Mark:
[Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9&endash;20.]a etc. --
I actually don't care if it's a later addition, and consider that irrelevant to me personally. My understanding of the messages from Christ don't depend on just certain passages like this one. Are you getting that? I don't need the text to be even written in just 1 year, or one 3 year period, etc. Sure, if something was added 200 years later, for instance (if that were the case), if I learned so I'd just discounted it. It's like.....here's an analogy: you discover a set of copies of scrolls in a cave, and generally they mostly agree with other copies. Is it a problem if there is a bit different in a scroll verses another copy from somewhere else? My answer is: not even a bit, and I'm barely even interested in that actually to be honest. I'm going to test the things that are meaningful here in this life here and now.

Analogy: you and me go to see a 'guru' talk in person and we listen. Ok, now we both have a perfect (or could have) knowing of what he said. We got the words perfect.

Right?

Does that make the words true (meaning better than competing ways to live)?

My answer: No, the accuracy is irrelevant to whether the ideas can prove the best among competing ideas from other gurus/philosophies. One has to test the ideas. Just my own viewpoint. You asked for my view.

 

[cvanwey]

(Just as I'm finishing this post I see you responded to the other, and I'll respond to that unrelated question in another thread)

Here's something very pragmatic, before I address these: It's just impractical to chase down every possible objection either one of us can think of simultaneously, because of the geometric effect: each one topic can potentially open 2 or 3 or 4 more new topics, and it would be possible in just a few posts to end up talking about even 7 or 11 different topics, and then you end up with a collapse of discussion or fail to really get to the bottom of some key thing that really is the most meaningful.

Right?

Agree, to an extent, but...

So, when I answer, let's do a hard thing, if you are willing.

Pick the 1 most key issue, only, for the moment, and focus on that, alone.

I was already ahead of you. I told you that even if I were to refute your two points, in the OP, it would not change your belief in the slightest. Hence, I cut to the chase, and highlighted, what seems to be, the reason, or one of the bigger reasons, you believe. Alas, the question:

So please tell me more about your testing, and why this testing verifies the claimed truth in 'Jesus as the Messiah'?

 

[Halbhh]

So please tell me more about your testing, and why this testing verifies the claimed truth in 'Jesus as the Messiah'?

This is 2 questions.

1rst is Not about believing, but just testing and how I tested
Look here: (click and wait a second or two till it jumps to that post)
Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

 

[cvanwey]

This is 2 questions.

1rst is Not about believing, but just testing and how I tested
Look here: (click and wait a second or two till it jumps to that post)
Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

I read it, plus all additional replies/responses, there-after.

Why does a human, whom tells others to love their enemies, prove He rose from the dead and died for our sins? You see, this goes directly right back to the very same exact question (i.e.)

Why does this testing verify the claimed truth in 'Jesus as the Messiah'?

 

[Halbhh]

[How] does a human, whom tells others to love their enemies, prove He rose from the dead and died for our sins?

I'm thinking you meant "How" does, instead of "Why" does, right? (or did you mean to say "Why"? -- if so, then I'm not sure just what you are trying to ask due to wording style)

How does He prove He rose from the dead? -- Is that the intended question?

If so, as best I understand, the answer is that there is never a proof before faith and actions, never ahead-of-time proof of Christ perhaps just for the living disciples in that time, those who saw Him in person before He departed physically being here in a human body.

I think the rest of us, after that time, don't get a proof ahead of time about anything.

Of course, if Christ says several remarkable things, and you test some of them, and they work, that at least suggests to one to test additional things. (mere rational self interest)

Instead, from the wordings in His teachings in the accounts, we are to do as He says, and then He says some outcomes that will happen, including the amazing ones also (both more easy to believe outcomes, and also some just jaw dropping outcomes, both). For many, those after-the-fact (after faith and doing instructions) outcomes are a confirmation, and for me they were a partial confirmation. Not the only kind I have actually, but I don't expect people to believe some of the things that happened to me until they experience an amazing thing like it themselves. It's enough to talk about the specified things in the text.

What many don't notice, or don't hear from their preachers for example, is that He does repeatedly put conditions -- if you do X, then Y will happen -- where the condition X is required for Y to happen. Often people don't seem aware of this, which can only be learned typically by careful reading. In other words, never expect outcome Y unless you really do X fully, just as He says, Himself, in the accounts. They work, though it takes years to test more than just a couple of things, in my experience.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm thinking you meant "How" does, instead of "Why" does, right? (or did you mean to say "Why"? -- if so, then I'm not sure just what you are trying to ask due to wording style)

How does He prove He rose from the dead? -- Is that the intended question?

If so, as best I understand, the answer is that there is never a proof before faith and actions, never ahead-of-time proof of Christ perhaps just for the living disciples in that time, those who saw Him in person before He departed physically being here in a human body.

I think the rest of us, after that time, don't get a proof ahead of time about anything.

Of course, if Christ says several remarkable things, and you test some of them, and they work, that at least suggests to one to test additional things. (mere rational self interest)

Instead, from the wordings in His teachings in the accounts, we are to do as He says, and then He says some outcomes that will happen, including the amazing ones also (both more easy to believe outcomes, and also some just jaw dropping outcomes, both). For many, those after-the-fact (after faith and doing instructions) outcomes are a confirmation, and for me they were a partial confirmation. Not the only kind I have actually, but I don't expect people to believe some of the things that happened to me until they experience an amazing thing like it themselves. It's enough to talk about the specified things in the text.

What many don't notice, or don't hear from their preachers for example, is that He does repeatedly put conditions -- if you do X, then Y will happen -- where the condition X is required for Y to happen. Often people don't seem aware of this, which can only be learned typically by careful reading. In other words, never expect outcome Y unless you really do X fully, just as He says, Himself, in the accounts. They work, though it takes years to test more than just a couple of things, in my experience.

Sorry for any confusion. Let me elaborate.

Why does, or how does a human, telling people to love even the ones whom harm them, prove He rose from the dead?

I don't see too much difference either way. But the gist is this... I really don't see how anyone telling others to love everyone, no matter what, would in any way, steer us towards the truth that this particular person is a Messiah?

Do you wish to modify your prior answer? Or should I respond, as given?

 

[Halbhh]

Sorry for any confusion. Let me elaborate.

Why does, or how does a human, telling people to love even the ones whom harm them, prove He rose from the dead?

I don't see too much difference either way. But the gist is this... I really don't see how anyone telling others to love everyone, no matter what, would in any way, steer us towards the truth that this particular person is a Messiah?

Do you wish to modify your prior answer? Or should I respond, as given?

As given, but let me add about "love even the ones who harm them" -- it's not necessarily the immediate response, because first comes forgiving them. Now, forgiving is indeed though a part of love, or an aspect. We forgive those we love more readily, and we love those we forgive more readily. When a person harms you before you hardly know them, before you love them, then the first step is to forgive them.

Forgiving isn't ignoring the wrong done. It's letting go of the resentment or desire for paying them back, for one thing. And a more full forgiveness includes truly forgiving in the heart, which sometimes isn't easy at first, and can take time, or help, or Aid (from above) if really hard to do.

Forgiving doesn't mean I ignore what the person did wrong. Example: if someone steals a pencil, you don't leave another pencil out where they could steal it the next day, even if you forgive them. Example: if they took something I told them and used it to belittle me, then I'd reasonably not tell them any more personal things, even while I forgive them. So, forgiving doesn't mean I become a repeated victim, but rather that I get free of what they did. I overcome what they did, through grace, and gain freedom from their wrongful action. I'm healed in effect. If they meant to harm, the harm they meant fails.