Are the Gospels reliable?

Quote: Evenbob

That's what it all comes down to. We
have copies of copies of copies of
copies (add a few more copies onto
that) of original documents that
were culled from stories of stories
of stories of stories (ad nauseam)
to the point that we can have no
idea as to what the real story was.

No Bob, the point is that we can have a very accurate idea what the real story was at least according to the original authors of the New Testament. You may doubt what they have written about and what has changed the world but that is not at issue here. You were the one who brought up the question if the Gospels were reliable. It is obvious that if any text of the ancient world is reliable to the content and intention of its original authors then it is the new Testament.

Quote:

I can guarantee this. It was boring
and there was nothing supernatural
about any of it. All that crap was added
by the extremely ignorant and
superstitious story tellers as time went
on.

I get that you don't want to believe it but you cannot guarantee it. Too many things point to the opposite of your guarantee. Lets not let our desires and wants get in the way of looking at the facts and the facts surrounding the specific question that was meant to give you an opportunity to engage in real dialogue. The people of the ancient world were not extremely ignorant and superstitious.

Quote:

Force others
to convert like the Church did for
hundreds and hundreds of years.

Stay on target Bob. However, if you would like our next question to be about if the Church forced others to convert I would be happy to take on that dialogue next.

Quote:

I'm tired
of giving so much time to discussing
something that has about as much
real meaning as Jack and the Beanstalk
or Snow White and the 7 Dwarves.

This is precisely the type of strange talk this dialogue was meant to address. Surely after listening to the likes of Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. William Lane Craig you don't really think that the New Testament which has shaped human history to a significant degree is no more important or has no more meaning that a Disney story?

Quote: FrGamble

the point is that we can have a very accurate idea what the real story was at least according to the original authors of the New Testament.

What are you talking about. There are NO
original manuscripts for any book in the NT.
NONE! All we have is copies of copies of
copies ad nauseam. And all the originals
were was cobbled together stories that
were repeated over and over and over
a zillion times before they got to writers
who recorded them.

This means any possibility of accuracy has
gone out the window. This is why testimony
of this sort would be laughed out of
any court in the world. Your argument
seems to be, so what if it's mostly made
up fairy tales, look at all the good we've
done with it.

That's a pretty poor argument, stop trying to
make it.

Well, the picture of the original intent of the authors was painted by other people who later selected which texts would, and would not, be included in the Bible.

Bob we have copies or copies of copies from independent different sources that agree in 98-99% of their content. The differences are found in spelling errors or choice of words not in substance. If you had over 6,000 hand copied texts from different areas and eras agreeing 99% of the time you would be pretty sure that they were reliable copies would you not? I think most people would accept that.

Quote: Dalex64

Well, the picture of the original intent of the authors was painted by other people who later selected which texts would, and would not, be included in the Bible.

A couple of things here. I don't think the original intent of the authors was changed by their selection as canonical texts or not. It was knowing their intent and having reliable and accurate texts that led to them being part of the Bible.

Another thing that would be interesting is a discussion on how and why texts became part of the Bible. I feel that some people think a group of guys met in secret and determined who made the cut or not. Rather the inclusion of texts was based on authorship, importance, age, and consistency with other texts. I am leaving out the most important basis, which was guidance by the Holy Spirit because you would need to be a believer to accept it. Anyway, the choosing of Biblical texts was far more organic and natural than some selection committee. It reflected the faith of the people of God not some small group pushing an agenda.

Quote: FrGamble

we have copies or copies of copies from independent different sources that agree in 98-99% of their content..

AND there are copies of copies of copies
that differ wildly from other versions of
the story.

The point, which you seem to want to avoid
at all costs, is there are zero first hand
reports from eyewitnesses. We do not know
and cannot know what really happened.
Assuming the stories handed down for
the decades afterwards were changed and
changed and changed ad nauseam, as word
of mouth stories ALWAYS ARE, we will
never know the details of what happened.

But you can take to the bank that it involved
nothing supernatural. No water walking,
no embarrassing magic trick Copperfield
'miracles', no raising from the dead. No
telling everybody he was god.

Never happened. You can believe it happened,
goody for you. But you cannot prove it to
any rational person, so why even bother trying.

Bob, what the Gospels and the New Testament do show us is that those who knew Jesus did believe it. Those closest to Him and His time not only believed what was written about Him but thought it entirely reasonable and trustworthy. So much so that unlike any other bloke of those times or ever before or ever since the message of the Gospel spread like wildfire.

I think the best I or anyone can hope to do is prove to a rational person that the Gospels are accurate and reliable in sharing what the authors who lived just decades after Jesus' death and who no doubt knew eyewitnesses to the person and life of Jesus believed. If you believe those who wrote down the Gospels or not is up to you, but they surely did and it has inspired the largest religion on Earth.

Quote: FrGamble

what the Gospels and the New Testament do show us is that those who knew Jesus did believe it.

They believed it, you believe
it, means and proves absolutely
nothing.

I'm totally bored with this thread,
I don't want to continue beating
this horse that was dead on arrival.
As always happens to non believers,
Xtionity eventually bores us to tears
as do all fairy tales if you examine
them close enough.

Quote: FrGamble

A couple of things here. I don't think the original intent of the authors was changed by their selection as canonical texts or not. It was knowing their intent and having reliable and accurate texts that led to them being part of the Bible.

Another thing that would be interesting is a discussion on how and why texts became part of the Bible. I feel that some people think a group of guys met in secret and determined who made the cut or not. Rather the inclusion of texts was based on authorship, importance, age, and consistency with other texts. I am leaving out the most important basis, which was guidance by the Holy Spirit because you would need to be a believer to accept it. Anyway, the choosing of Biblical texts was far more organic and natural than some selection committee. It reflected the faith of the people of God not some small group pushing an agenda.

That's real hard to discuss, with next to none of the excluded material readily available, plus some unknown quantity of unknown corpus that no one even knows about subsequent to its exclusion.

As for intent of the authors, how can you say that either? Who knows what "teaching of Jesus" or "testimony of an apostle" either known or unknown were left out?

We also know that "guidance by the holy spirit" is notoriously inconsistent and of unknown reliability. If that is the most important factor to you, then you truly are relying completely on faith that that's how it happened. It is wishful thinking.

I don't care how large or small the group is, or if you call it "reflecting their faith" rather than "pushing an agenda" - those words there are 100% spin doctoring.

Quote: Evenbob

They believed it, you believe
it, means and proves absolutely
nothing.

I'm totally bored with this thread,
I don't want to continue beating
this horse that was dead on arrival.
As always happens to non believers,
Xtionity eventually bores us to tears
as do all fairy tales if you examine
them close enough.

The question is not if I, you, or they believe it. The question was if the Gospels were reliable in that they express accurately what the original authors wrote and intended, and I think it has been shown that they are.

Would you like to dialogue next on if the history of the Church and violence? This could be in terms of the Inquisition, witch trials, forced conversions, or the crusades. These seem to be the places where in the over 2,000 year history of the Church people rightly point to some serious concerns. How grave are these concerns and what are the historical facts about these times. Might be a good dialogue to have for both of us to learn.