The Historicity of the Gospels

mark kennedy · Dec 15, 2018

cvanwey said:
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'.

Ok, understand no one is questioning Galatians or at least six other NT books were written by Paul. Galatians being a very early book. Stories didn't exactly flourish in the early decades following the ascension of Christ because the Apostles, who were eye witnesses, were with them. John Mark wrote the Gospel according to Mark under the supervision of Peter in Rome, think what you like but that's what Christian scholarship has maintained for 2,000 years.

A lot of Christian scholars have seriously questions the last verses of John Mark's Gospel for very good reason, it's simply unlike the rest of the book. It probably originally ended with 'and they were all in fear', you have to understand the purpose of the book in the first place. They knew about the resurrection but the details of Jesus earthly ministry were sketchy at best, unless you had access to the Apostles of course. John Mark is kind of filling in the blanks and the church took great pains to preserve that testimony being so closely associated with the Apostles.

Speculation and controversy abounds regarding the ending, what is it doing in there is the biggest question, not so much does it belong. It was one of the earlier books and perhaps the ending from the original was recreated or maybe some well meaning scribe tried to piece together the ending he remembered, that is lost to history. There are some questions regarding parts of John's Gospel, like the woman caught in adultery. But the book itself has been the subject of virtually no controversy until modern times and the vast majority of that is from modern secular scholars.

You might want to consider this if your taking the subject matter seriously:

Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer." (Testimony of the Evangelists 1846 by Simon Greenleaf)

cvanwey · Dec 15, 2018

redleghunter said:
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.

True. Maybe I should adopt your rationale...

The Catholics are the only ones whom wrote about such events. They already believe in people raising from the dead. They then spoke about people raising from the dead in their writings. No one else wrote anything. The Catholics were very smart. Therefore, it is ALL true

cvanwey · Dec 15, 2018

mark kennedy said:
Ok, understand no one is questioning Galatians or at least six other NT books were written by Paul. Galatians being a very early book. Stories didn't exactly flourish in the early decades following the ascension of Christ because the Apostles, who were eye witnesses, were with them. John Mark wrote the Gospel according to Mark under the supervision of Peter in Rome, think what you like but that's what Christian scholarship has maintained for 2,000 years.

A lot of Christian scholars have seriously questions the last verses of John Mark's Gospel for very good reason, it's simply unlike the rest of the book. It probably originally ended with 'and they were all in fear', you have to understand the purpose of the book in the first place. They knew about the resurrection but the details of Jesus earthly ministry were sketchy at best, unless you had access to the Apostles of course. John Mark is kind of filling in the blanks and the church took great pains to preserve that testimony being so closely associated with the Apostles.

Speculation and controversy abounds regarding the ending, what is it doing in there is the biggest question, not so much does it belong. It was one of the earlier books and perhaps the ending from the original was recreated or maybe some well meaning scribe tried to piece together the ending he remembered, that is lost to history. There are some questions regarding parts of John's Gospel, like the woman caught in adultery. But the book itself has been the subject of virtually no controversy until modern times and the vast majority of that is from modern secular scholars.

Growing legendary embellishment, written from an extremely bias perspective. Nuff said

mark kennedy · Dec 15, 2018

cvanwey said:
True. Maybe I should adopt your rationale...

The Catholics are the only ones whom wrote about such events. They already believe in people raising from the dead. They then spoke about people raising from the dead in their writings. No one else wrote anything. The Catholics were very smart. Therefore, it is ALL true

Catholicism didn't come around until hundreds of years after the canon was already well established among believers. They did work tirelessly to preserve the canon after they arrived but Apostolic authority was never dependent on them, even though they claim it rests with them, it predates that institution by hundreds of years.

mark kennedy · Dec 15, 2018

cvanwey said:
Growing legendary embellishment, written from an extremely bias perspective. Nuff said

The strange case of the incredibly shrinking argument, reduced to...well...that light hearted jest. Not a credible or persuasive line of reasoning.

cvanwey · Dec 15, 2018

mark kennedy said:
Catholicism didn't come around until hundreds of years after the canon was already well established among believers. They did work tirelessly to preserve the canon after they arrived but Apostolic authority was never dependent on them, even though they claim it rests with them, it predates that institution by hundreds of years.

My point was entirely missed.

mark kennedy · Dec 15, 2018

cvanwey said:
My point was entirely missed.

No, I understood your point, I just disagree with it.

cvanwey · Dec 15, 2018

mark kennedy said:
The strange case of the incredibly shrinking argument, reduced to...well...that light hearted jest. Not a credible or persuasive line of reasoning.

I actually just summed up the entire conclusion in a very pretty little tiny package.

cvanwey · Dec 15, 2018

mark kennedy said:
No, I understood your point, I just disagree with it.

Fair enough

mark kennedy · Dec 15, 2018

cvanwey said:
I actually just summed up the entire conclusion in a very pretty little tiny package.

Well I'll just leave you with my opinion, the conclusion is ill founded but we are all entitled to our opinions, just not our own facts.

Thanks for the exchange.

cvanwey · Dec 15, 2018

mark kennedy said:
Well I'll just leave you with my opinion, the conclusion is ill founded but we are all entitled to our opinions, just not our own facts.

Thanks for the exchange.

Good night

mark kennedy · Dec 15, 2018

cvanwey said:
Good night

Grace and peace,
Mark

redleghunter · Dec 15, 2018

cvanwey said:
True. Maybe I should adopt your rationale...

The Catholics are the only ones whom wrote about such events. They already believe in people raising from the dead. They then spoke about people raising from the dead in their writings. No one else wrote anything. The Catholics were very smart. Therefore, it is ALL true

That’s a narrative you created which confirmed my assessments.

doubtingmerle · Dec 15, 2018

redleghunter said:
Recommend further studies. It is true the earlier 16th century Bible translations used Greek manuscripts only a few hundred years old.

Yet all critical text translations we have today are from Greek texts reaching back to before the 4th century AD due to discoveries in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Understood.

You are responding to a post that I addressed to someone else, not to you. In my post I was addressing someone who claimed that hundreds of thousands of manuscripts from the Middle Ages proved the documents. I actually agree with you that the best evidence is the few documents we have from the early centuries, not the many we have from the Middle Ages.

doubtingmerle · Dec 15, 2018

redleghunter said:
Considering Matthew, Mark, Luke and several of Paul's epistles were quoted through the end of the 1st century and exponentially into the 2nd century, I don't see how your statement holds water.

The quoted books are: Mt, Mk, Lk, Acts, Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation

Here are the rest of the quotes:

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Matthew 18:6 (also Mark 9:42) as by the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Clement ch.46 p.17-18

Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians ch.2 p.33 (110-155 A.D.) quotes all of Matthew 7:1 "but be mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged;"

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Mark 7:6 1 (Also Matthew 15:8; Isaiah 29:13) 1 Clement ch.15 vol.1 p.9

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes Luke 6:36 Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.2 p.33

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1/4 of Acts 20:35f (5 words out of 26 words) 1 Clement vol.1 ch.2 p.5

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of Acts 2:24a (7 out of 15 Greek words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.1 p.33

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:32b 1 Clementch.35 p.14

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes 1 Corinthians 2:9 1 Clement ch.34 p.14

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes one-fourth of Galatians 6:7 "God is not mocked" (3 out of 14 Greek words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.5 p.34

Ignatius: Paul wrote a letter to the Ephesians according to Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians ch.12 p.55

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes Ephesians 4:26 "For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, …It is declared then in these Scriptures, ‘Be ye angry, and sin not,’ and , ‘Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.’" (12/12 words of the verse) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.12 p.35

Ignatius quotes 1 Thessalonians 5:17 Ignatius’ Letter to Polycarp ch.1 p.93

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of 2 Thessalonians 3:15a (5 out of 9 Greek words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.11 p.35

Ignatius quotes one-fourth of 1 Timothy 1:1 "Jesus Christ who is our hope" Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians ch.1 p.64

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes 1 Timothy 6:7 "Knowing, therefore, that ‘as we brought nothing into the world, so we can carry nothing out,’ (11 out of 12 words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.4 p.34

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of 1 Timothy 6:10a. "But the love of money is the root of all evils." (8 out of 21 words) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.4 p.34

Polycarp: (100-155 A.D.) quotes 2 Timothy 2:12 He [the Lord] has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, ‘we shall also reign together with Him,’ provided only we believe." Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians ch.5 p.34

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes half of Titus 3:1b "Ye never grudged any act of kindness, being ‘ready to every good work.’ (6 out of 13 words) 1 Clement ch.2 vol.1 p.5

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes Heb 1:4. "’who being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.’ For it is thus written, ‘Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.’ But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: ‘thou are my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. As of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.’ And again He said to Him, ‘site thou at Mu right hand, until I make Thine enemies thy footstool.’" 1 Clement ch.36 vol.1 p.15

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes half of Heb 3:2b 1 Clement ch.17 vol.1 p.10

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes three-fourths of Heb 10:37 1 Clement ch.23 vol.1 p.11

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes James 4:6 (same as 1 Peter 5:5b; Proverbs 3:34) 1 Clement ch.30 vol.1 p.13

Polycarp (110-155 A.D.) quotes all of 1 Peter 2:22 in Letter to the Philippians ch.8 p.35.

Polycarp (110-155 A.D.) quotes the first half of 1 Peter 3:9. Letter to the Philippians ch.2 p.33. He also quotes the last fourth of 1 Peter 1:11 in ch.5 p.34. He quotes the first half of 1 Peter 2:23 in ch.8 p.35

Polycarp (100-155 A.D.) quotes half of 1 John 4:3a,c (13 out of 34 Greek words, with gaps) Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippiansch.7 p.34

Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) quotes: Revelation 22:12 p.14 (This is also the same as Isaiah 40:10; 62:11) 1 Clement ch.34 vol.1 p.14

Interesting list. Thanks.

Does any of this prove the gospels were widely known in the end of the first century? I think not.

Your 3 sources are Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius. None of these give a clear recognition of the four gospels as we know them. The quotes from Paul and other epistles are irrelevant to the recognition of the four gospels. The few quotes of sayings are not specifically said to be from the gospels. Similar sayings are found in Thomas, James, and Q if it existed. Also they could come from word of mouth or other sources. The fact that people were attributing a range of sayings to Jesus is not in question. Whether they recognized the four gospels as accurately portraying history is in question.

Regarding the timing of these sources, Polycarp is definitely second century, probably near the end of your range, so he doesn't apply. The dating of the first epistle of Clement is controversial, but probably near 140 AD. Even if around 97 AD, as you state, it is hardly evidence of what is happening in the period between the apostles and the later church. Ignatius is probably from that period, but there are questions about what is authentically from him. None of them specifically reference a story written in one of the gospels as being historical. Not until the third century does that become common.

ToBeLoved · Dec 15, 2018

cvanwey said:
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.

Have you read the writings of Josephus, the Roman Historian, and what he wrote about Jesus and The apostles from a historical perspective?

cvanwey · Dec 15, 2018

redleghunter said:
That’s a narrative you created which confirmed my assessments.

LOL. Your contention is that prior to a few centuries ago, the only ones whom wrote of historical events were Catholic in origin. Okay, if this is true, we have then confirmed that only people whom believe that many people, (like Matthew 27:52-53), rose from the dead, and that the resurrection is 'just plain fact'; by way of prior hearsay, and not instead from first-hand eyewitness testimony, which was reported from none other then biased individuals, whom already believed in such as their only source(s).

In conclusion, we appear to have quite the contrary. It is you whom have confirmed my initial assessment regarding the evaluation of historicity - contemporary or from antiquity (i.e.):

Are such events acknowledged as possibly fallible? no
Are events removed from being written from religious or political bias or agenda? no
Are such claimed eyewitness events narrated from first hand accounts? no
Are such records plausible under the laws of physics? no
Have the records been reliably preserved? no

*****************

Your repeated response is that I must then discount ANY history prior to recent reported events. My response is an emphatic no. As I already stated, even if what you state is true regarding the Catholic's writing and reporting of events, it is one thing to investigate or correlate a said physical event in claimed history. However, if any claim in history hinged upon direct eyewitness testimony; meaning, the necessity of independent firsthand accounts of a witnessed one time event, (like seeing a miracle for instance), it would be nice if the ones reporting as such are not ONLY from the biased individuals whom already have predetermined that such miracles are 'true'. No, it instead warrants further corroboration from writers in history whom are not emotionally invested in the claim to substantiate their beliefs.

And if we do not have this, then there you go. biased claims, supported by biased predetermined beliefs, substantiated and concluded by the monopoly of the ones whom reported as such.

So again, it must all be true, because they were the only ones to report it

cvanwey · Dec 15, 2018

ToBeLoved said:
Have you read the writings of Josephus, the Roman Historian, and what he wrote about Jesus and The apostles from a historical perspective?

Yes I have. He reported what some people believed.

Historians have also concluded that the 'golden paragraph' was a later addition, or possible forgery. Why? The 'golden paragraph' was demonstrated to not appear until centuries after the original publication, demonstrating additions made by a later re-copiest. The piece was merely reports of what others claimed, and is nothing more than reporting what other people believed. When one looks at the 'golden paragraph', it's literary style looks to not match any of the other text within the same book, further eluding to an addition made later by another writer.

Goonie · Dec 15, 2018

ToBeLoved said:
Have you read the writings of Josephus, the Roman Historian, and what he wrote about Jesus and The apostles from a historical perspective?

The problem with Josephus is that there is good reason to believe that the text has been added to.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

It is a passage that flies in the face of everything else he wrote, from style, to the fact that it is written from what appears to be a Christian perspective. It is more than likely later Christian scribes added to, if not inventing the whole passage, to the original text.

cvanwey · Dec 15, 2018

Goonie said:
The problem with Josephus is that there is good reason to believe that the text has been added to.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

It is a passage that flies in the face of everything else he wrote, from style, to the fact that it is written from what appears to be a Christian perspective. It is more than likely later Christian scribes added to, if not inventing the whole passage, to the original text.

Exactly!

But even if it wasn't. Who cares really regardless... Josephus was a man, born after Jesus' claimed death, whom reported what some people believed.

It is quite comical that anyone attempting to argue their position would even attempt to use such an example. Such writings no further substantiate, validate, or attest the claims of a contemporaneous eyewitness regardless.

The Historicity of the Gospels

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Thank You Jesus!

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not so Mystic Mog.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency