Are the Gospels reliable?

Page 4 of 11<1234567>Last »
March 4th, 2018 at 7:05:34 PM permalink
pew
Member since: Jan 8, 2013
Threads: 4
Posts: 1232
Quote: Dalex64
That is the height of circular logic, quoting a source that is under discussion about its reliability as proof that it is reliable because it says so.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. You have no idea what it says. #so sad.
March 4th, 2018 at 7:18:23 PM permalink
pew
Member since: Jan 8, 2013
Threads: 4
Posts: 1232
Quote: Evenbob
And there lies the problem. Handed down
by word of mouth in stories that were
changed countless times in the decades
before they were written down.

How do we know they were changed? Look
at how different the 4 gospels are from
one another and they supposedly tell
the SAME STORY. There were scores
of gospels that didn't make the cut, each
a version of the same events. We do not
know, cannot know, what really happened
or was really said.

What we do know for a fact is that repeated
stories are never toned down, they are
always embellished in the other direction.
Amplified for effect, they were telling these
stories to get converts. The NT is useless,
good only for fooling children, the lazy,
and the ignorant.



FrG will do exactly the same thing, once he
gets done frantically searching for proof
that isn't there. He'lluse the gospels
themselves as proof of their reliability.
Xtions always do this, and I mean always.
And you are just clueless. Why FG bothers with your ridiculous blather is beyond comprehension. The other nitwits on this board are simply ignorant. You on the other hand suffer from severe cognitive dissonance and self hate which makes you the most religious and fervent voice on this board. You just can't help yourself. #so sad
March 4th, 2018 at 9:08:50 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: pew
And you are just clueless.


And you are another Xtion who would
believe the moon is green cheese if
he heard it in church, because they
never lie.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
March 5th, 2018 at 2:11:42 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5055
If this is just going to become personal attacks, I will bow out. Why do people like that stuff?
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
March 5th, 2018 at 4:54:12 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
The initial fault is in the question concerning the word reliable.
That is somewhat akin to the city slicker asking about the bull being safe.

If these ancient writings were identical in every respect there would still be those who would be screaming fraud.

Reliable? For what purposes? If people 'rely' on the Bible ought the to have some sort of strict reliance and trust? Its a matter for the 'believer' to engage in and that is always going to be a matter of faith not facts. Historical inaccuracies, misplaced causation, are acceptable simply because they have to be.

We gloss over a great deal. The use of citrus fruits amongst British sailors was a battle that took decades to evolve amidst outright hostility. The same thing took place with doctors washing their hands and hospitals keeping ward records of weekly sheet boiling. That today we teach there was no delay, no battle just a "discovery" doesn't change the actual battles that took place but it does make them irrelevant.

Disputing the minutiae gains you nothing. Its a matter of faith, not of science.
March 5th, 2018 at 5:40:30 AM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 3687
Quote: Fleastiff

If these ancient writings were identical in every respect there would still be those who would be screaming fraud.

People screaming fraud no matter what are irrelevant to the original question of reliabity.

Quote:
Historical inaccuracies, misplaced causation, are acceptable simply because they have to be.

We gloss over a great deal. The use of citrus fruits amongst British sailors was a battle that took decades to evolve amidst outright hostility. The same thing took place with doctors washing their hands and hospitals keeping ward records of weekly sheet boiling. That today we teach there was no delay, no battle just a "discovery" doesn't change the actual battles that took place but it does make them irrelevant.

Disputing the minutiae gains you nothing. Its a matter of faith, not of science.


Science and historical accuracy are not matters of faith.

If you want to say that the gospels are reliable because you have faith that they are, you can. That doesn't make the stories true, historically accurate, or a reliable account of what happened.

If FrGamble would clarify what he meant by the term reliable, then we would have something common from which to base our arguments.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
March 5th, 2018 at 6:21:59 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Sorry, for the delay in writing in this thread that I started and the confusion it may have caused.

I think reliability can be looked at in two ways. First, that the Gospels we have today are accurate and reliable to the original writings of the authors. That our translations are the same in content and form of the original Gospels. That the text and meaning have not changed from the beginning and give today a reliable reading of what the original authors wrote. Secondly, that the Gospels give a reliable picture of the person of Jesus of Nazareth who they knew as Christ and Savior of the World. Since this second aspect of reliability may be a little more difficult and include elements of faith may I suggest we continue to discuss the first dimension of reliability.

It has already been mentioned a few times that some are concerned that since the Gospels differ from one another and have been copied many times that this would lead to mistakes and that it would effect their reliability.

I would like to point out some simple facts. Homer's Iliad and Odessy as well as Plato and Aristotle's works have no more than 1,000 manuscripts that attest to the actual construction of their works. Some of these great ancient works have less that 20 or 30 older manuscripts that can give us assurance that what we read is what was written.

The Bible has over 6,000 manuscripts in the original languages and over 40,000 in old manuscripts in various languages. These come in Papyri, Codices, and minuscules. We can look over all these ancient witnesses to the Bible and the Gospels in particular and note their agreement and what is missing or what was a mistake. In fact we have an amazing work of scholarship constantly updated, the 27th edition was published in 1993 called the Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek NT. Here scholars painstakingly analyze all the manuscripts and put together a Greek NT that is based on the most ancient attestations and most common agreement of texts. Our translations of Bibles today are based on scholarly work that gets us unmistakably close to the original texts. It is also worth noticing in all this independent ancient versions of the Biblical text there is little disagreement and no disagreement on points of doctrinal significance (meaning that some different words may be used in different manuscripts, but the meaning is the same). Obvious changes or errors can also be easily spotted thanks to this army of attestation.

Therefore I believe it makes sense to believe that the Gospels are reliable in that they are today what they were originally written.

I also want to say that I think the difference between the Gospels themselves has been greatly exaggerated. The first 3 Gospels are called the Synoptic Gospels because they so closely look the same. 80% of Mark's Gospel verses are in Matthew's Gospel and 65% of Mark's verses are in Luke's. Luke and Matthew themselves share 235 verses. This gives a picture of a unified whole presented in different ways including unique personal traditions and a structure that is based on addressing different audiences. This is a fascinating topic that much more could be written about.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
March 5th, 2018 at 6:39:04 AM permalink
pew
Member since: Jan 8, 2013
Threads: 4
Posts: 1232
If the gospels were the same it would make their reliability more suspect not less. The fact that they come from different perspectives gives them the ring of truth. If you were sitting on a jury and four witnesses gave the exact same testimony you would think something is amiss, maybe they were coached or they colluded with one another.
March 5th, 2018 at 8:26:41 AM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 3687
Quote: FrGamble
That the text and meaning have not changed from the beginning and give today a reliable reading of what the original authors wrote.


You keep saying this, but it is demonstrably not true. You might be able to argue that the meaning has not significantly changed, but in no way can you say that the text has not changed.

There is also no way you can know how much the oral history changed before it was written down.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
March 5th, 2018 at 8:34:23 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5055
I have a book of photographs taken of Lincoln, there are 120 or so, the first president to get such attention from the camera. On page after page it says "original negative [etc] now lost" - only a handful of original such have survived. This is now 7 score and 13 years since the last of them were taken, not long, and their value was very much realized at the time, yet we have this problem. In some of the photos, frankly, it doesn't quite look like him, not exactly. You could make a case.

I'm just pointing out the unreasonable standard some are requesting that these testimonies should adhere to. Should the Church just finally decide to jettison the lot of them? They are what they are, and they are quite precious, just as they have been treated over the millennia.
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
Page 4 of 11<1234567>Last »