The Historicity of the Gospels

[redleghunter]

So now all one can do is study all physical and repeatable claims from the Bible, to see if these at least stack up in reality. And sure enough, some don't....

Because the dead don’t rise?

 

[redleghunter]

Well, I notice that you did not answer my question. Again: Do you have any evidence that the words in the book of Matthew were written by a credible witness? I take note that you did not answer.

I took note you have no evidence Matthew was not a credible witness.

 

[redleghunter]

There are a lot of NT historians, that play fast and loose with the historical method, when it comes to the NT, no question.

When it comes to miracles, an honest historian will say; the historical method wont touch claimed miracles. Why? Because the historical method, is designed to find the most likely explanation. By nature, a miracle is the least likely explanation for any claims by humans.

Of course and why rising from the dead was such a huge deal. An entire church began because of this huge deal.

 

[redleghunter]

Are records acknowledged as fallible? no
Are records first hand accounts? no
Are events independently corroborated? no
Are events plausible under laws of physics? no
Are records verified by concrete relics? no
Have records been reliably preserved? no
Are records preserved in their native language? no
Are the records politically and socially unbiased? no

I already offered to you what completely defeats Your assertions. That from the very beginning there has been a church which continued unbroken to this time.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I took note you have no evidence Matthew was not a credible witness.

I take note that you did not read the lengthy post I wrote describing why Matthew should not be considered a credible witness. See Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II .

 

[doubtingmerle]

I took note you have no evidence Matthew was not a credible witness.

I also take note that you have not told us why the words in the book of Matthew should be considered as being written by a credible witness.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course and why rising from the dead was such a huge deal. An entire church began because of this huge deal.

It is a huge deal if you buy the story. If you dont, it becomes just one of thousands of religious claims, manufactured by humans.

 

[redleghunter]

It is a huge deal if you buy the story. If you dont, it becomes just one of thousands of religious claims, manufactured by humans.

And that's your choice according your nature to determine.

 

[bhsmte]

And that's your choice according your nature to determine.

My nature, is to follow evidence, that is objective and can be verified.

 

[redleghunter]

My nature, is to follow evidence, that is objective and can be verified.

Then follow the evidence instead of impeaching it. Look I'm not the type to throw a Bible in front of someone and demand they read it. But if one is going to make assertions and theories about the writings themselves they should be studying them and not piecemeal.

The flawed argument I see here is "People don't rise from the dead, so the Bible is wrong." Then when someone shows the Scriptures do provide evidence of people rising from the dead bodily the evidence is impeached.

The Irish twins have it down pat:

 

[redleghunter]

I also take note that you have not told us why the words in the book of Matthew should be considered as being written by a credible witness.

That's because since the beginning of the church no one doubted the authorship and apostolic nature of the Gospel of Matthew. Again, Matthew nor the Bible just fell out of the sky in the 19th century.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That's because since the beginning of the church no one doubted the authorship and apostolic nature of the Gospel of Matthew.

No, it is not true that no one has ever doubted the apostolic nature of the Gospel of Matthew. I doubt it.

So there. Some people doubt it.

 

[bhsmte]

Then follow the evidence instead of impeaching it. Look I'm not the type to throw a Bible in front of someone and demand they read it. But if one is going to make assertions and theories about the writings themselves they should be studying them and not piecemeal.

The flawed argument I see here is "People don't rise from the dead, so the Bible is wrong." Then when someone shows the Scriptures do provide evidence of people rising from the dead bodily the evidence is impeached.

The Irish twins have it down pat:

LOL

 

[redleghunter]

No, it is not true that no one has ever doubted the apostolic nature of the Gospel of Matthew. I doubt it.

So there. Some people doubt it.

Who doubted it in the early centuries?

 

[redleghunter]

LOL

Either way the video is entertaining.

My favorite is this one around the holidays:

 

[doubtingmerle]

Who doubted it in the early centuries?

Skeptics doubted it .I don't have all their names.

But that is immaterial. I have posted a long list of reasons not to trust the book and you simply ignored my post.

 

[redleghunter]

Skeptics doubted it

Who?

I don't have all their names.

Obviously not Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus and Tertullian among the hundreds of early church theologians. Especially the very early ones who knew the apostles and quoted their works. The unbroken chain of the church.

But that is immaterial.

Actually that is front and center. You failed to consider the historic scholarship and did exactly what 19th century skeptics did....figured you knew better than the people closest to the material and then dismiss their scholarship.

I have posted a long list of reasons not to trust the book and you simply ignored my post.

No sir, I responded to the post you linked. It was conjecture and what I would expect from someone who disregards the historical scholarship.

 

[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.

Often? More like never. I've NEVER seen that statement.

The idea is that whatever in the Gospels corresponds to Christian faith cannot be historically trustworthy.

No.

Literary analysis shows that Mark is the first gospel, and archaeological analysis shows that that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus in Mark were a later forgery. Matthew and Luke later lifted from Mark, but presumably from an early version without the forged ending.

Basically, when Matthew and Luke agree, it's because they're both lifting from Mark. When they disagree, they're discussing material not present in Mark. In other words, they're adding embellishments.

The resurrection narrative is such an embellishment.

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?

Because faith is not a prerequisite for using one's eyeballs and writing things down. Is this even a serious question? It's like you're saying I have to believe in aliens before I can film a UFO.

 

[mark kennedy]

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?

The Scriptures in the Old and New Testaments, are a living witness since they have been in the custody of living communities their entire history, the Hebrew and Christian communities respectively. These scrolls were read regularly in public assemblies throughout church history and the New Testament was prolifically and meticulously copied, now with some 30,000 scrolls extant. They are by far the best preserved documents from antiquity, there is no close second. Starting in 144 AD questions were raised regarding the canon of Scripture and various Gnostic circulated claiming New Testament authority. The church opposed revisions and maintained the scrolls known to have apostolic authority. Matthew and Mark in particular have some of the oldest and best scrolls, some dating back to the first century. The church knew and does know their own sacred writings. Matthew being the mothership of bibliographical credibility, skeptics are woefully inadequate in their evidential arguments to the contrary.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[doubtingmerle]

Who? Obviously not Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus and Tertullian among the hundreds of early church theologians. Especially the very early ones who knew the apostles and quoted their works. The unbroken chain of the church.

Oh dear. Polycarp and Ignatius in no way credit the words of the book of Matthew as being written by an eyewitness. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian are too late to be a reliable witness of who wrote the gospels.

Actually that is front and center. You failed to consider the historic scholarship and did exactly what 19th century skeptics did....figured you knew better than the people closest to the material and then dismiss their scholarship.

Huh? The ancients thought the sun went around the earth. Does that prove the sun goes around the earth?

The ancients were sometimes wrong, yes?