Why did Gospel writers care so little for history?

Why? said:
Please explain. Don't understand your point.
Click to expand...

We’ve talked about the reliability of the secular historical facts in the NT. Now we journey into the theological aspects, specifically the resurrection of Jesus.

After his resurrection, Jesus was seen by some 500 eyewitnesses. Paul encourages his readers to seek out those eyewitnesses as many were still alive when he wrote. Many of those who claimed to be eyewitnesses died unflinchingly for their testimony. This established fact attests to the sincerity of their faith and strongly rules out deception on their part. In fact, all but one of the New Testament's authors were executed for proclaiming and defending Christ's resurrection (John alone was spared, but forced into exile by the Roman Emperor Titus Flavius Domitianius). This is compelling evidence of the resurrection.
 
The Bible isn't very reliable as a historical reference. For instance, there is no evidence of an exodus out of Egypt.
 
Revolvr said:
We’ve talked about the reliability of the secular historical facts in the NT. Now we journey into the theological aspects, specifically the resurrection of Jesus.

After his resurrection, Jesus was seen by some 500 eyewitnesses. Paul encourages his readers to seek out those eyewitnesses as many were still alive when he wrote. Many of those who claimed to be eyewitnesses died unflinchingly for their testimony. This established fact attests to the sincerity of their faith and strongly rules out deception on their part. In fact, all but one of the New Testament's authors were executed for proclaiming and defending Christ's resurrection (John alone was spared, but forced into exile by the Roman Emperor Titus Flavius Domitianius). This is compelling evidence of the resurrection.
Click to expand...

It is only evidence that people believed in the resurrection.Many people believe mediums can talk to the dead, heal at a distance and so on. Tom Cruise believes in Scientology. Belief alone is insufficient.
 
Myles said:
It is only evidence that people believed in the resurrection.Many people believe mediums can talk to the dead, heal at a distance and so on. Tom Cruise believes in Scientology. Belief alone is insufficient.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Tom would die for scientology. But you you are absolutely correct, they did believe. Which means at least it wasn't deception, a hoax, or a work of fiction.
 
Revolvr said:
I'm not sure Tom would die for scientology. But you you are absolutely correct, they did believe. Which means at least it wasn't deception, a hoax, or a work of fiction.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is a non -sequitur. Their belief may have been ill founded, just like the beliefs of Scientologists and adherents of all sorts of cults.
 
Dr Mabuse said:
ok this is a bit of a non-answer... i would characterize this quoted portion above as maybe a step or two above "they started it, that's why"... and it doesn't answer the basic question...

if you care nothing for the bible, and it's nonsense, and the like... why would anyone care enough to go into criticizing it?...

Criticizing the bible is an implied criticism of those who have the need to propogate it. If my ctiticizm gives only a few people pause for thought, it's worth the effort. I have already stated why I am against the influence of Christianity in society.


for just one example, i could care less about the books written by Shirley Maclaine, i find them to be nonsense... i wouldn't endeavor to even address the stuff... in fact in literal truth this is the first time in my life i have ever typed/mentioned her name in this way, or mentioned her books, on the internet or IRL, and i did this only for the sake of example...

Now you are doing what you accuse others of doing. You are condemning books without having read and studied them thoroughly. You are clearly no Shirley Maclaine scholar in the sense you would have those who criticize the Bible be. I assume this is because you know the Bible is all that's needed. Perhaps you might find the truth in Shirley's books if you devoted more time to their study.

I think Shirley's books are rubbish. The nonsense she writes is , to me, in the same category as the fairytales in the Bible.The difference is that she does not try to influence government policy in the way the Chritian lobby does.




if i was spending my time going into critiques of her material as nonsense and baseless stuff, repeatedly making what i thought were clever forays into dissecting her ideas, and the tenants of spirituality she espouses, if i spent time lampooning those who follow her ideas as profound spirituality, who think her so enlightened...
if i did these things and etc... anyone with a modicum of wisdom would know something was up, i was protesting too much, there was more to the issue than me merely finding her works nonsense... i may use the fact that she writes best selling novels, or has many people who follow her advice and tenants and etc. as some excuse for my oddly focused energy on trying to 'shoot her down'... but there is no escaping how odd, telling, and out of place my use of my time and energy focusing on her stuff would be... even though i may delude myself, anyone with any real intelligence would see through it...

You have given a perfect description of what Christians who accost me on the street or ring my doorbell are doing.


in your case more directly, if 'they'(Christians) are trying to influence government policy, for instance, then it is merely a political action concern... one may start a political action committee of their own, to counter the political influence, they might not vote for candidates and representatives who subscribed to that stuff... etc... there simply is no logical or meaningful reason to begin on some critical analysis of the book/books of the religion...

It's a political action based on the certainy of blind faith , which is beyond rational discussion. How, for example. can one have a rational discussion on the teaching of evolutionary theory in schools, when its opponents use arguments which are based on a total misunderstanding of the subject. Are you aware that most Americans are scientifically illiterate ? A survey carried out in 2001 by the National Science Foundation found, for example, that 50% could not be certain that the earth orbits the sun and takes one year to do it.

I know that some Christian groups accept evolutionary theory; it's the influence of the bigots that concerns me. As you are aware there are many other areas of conflict between Christians and non-Christians




now you completely avoid my point, which is, i see almost no intelligent and well informed criticism of the bible... it is always done by those who are almost completely ignorant of the text... and this from scientists, so often, who espouse 'peer review by informed colleagues' as requirements to validate their ideas... yet this same crowd suddenly finds completely ignorant criticism of a thing like the bible as 'perfectly reasonable'... a painfully obvious, and complete contradiction of motives, logic, and methods... it sticks out like a sore thumb...

You are assumimg that I an others like me have no understanding of the Bible.
In my case you are completely wrong. I have said I was brought up a Christian and remained one until I began to question the Bible. I concluded it was mythology and that was an informed decision





"unlike most Christians i thought about religion" true, most don't...

but anyone who has actually studied the bible knows full well it is an anti-religion book... the simple fact is... MOST, 99% of the 'religious', the 'Christians', church goers of every flavor, have never studied the book... a smaller percentage than that of 'critics have actually read the stuff...

You make the above statement and then take offence when I suggest you are one of the elect, i.e., one of the 1%. I don't know the source of your data , but I believe Photizo would be pleased if you explained why the Bible is an anti-religion book


"growing up in a Christian ethos" sounds more like you have unresolved issues with your family dynamic, and parents, than anything to do with the actual text of, and teachings in, the bible... and this flavour of 'justification' is what you find most of the time in this 'anti bible' type of approach... it's odd, out of place, illogical, and telling...

You know very well that most children in the US and the UK were brought up in a Christian ethos but you try to deny this by talking about unresolved family issues. Again, you are totally wrong.



"why waste further time on the bible"? ironic you point out my simple assertion for me... why are you "wasting time" posting about something you claim to be nonsense?and please, no more "because they started it" circular logic...

I am not wasting further time studying the Bible but I will continue to oppose those who would have others believe it. That is my motivation for posting . I don't see it as a waste of time. As I said earlier , if I can give just a few people pause for thought before accepting your blinkered view of the world, it will be time well spent.


so people "who believe they have all the answers because they have studied a copy of their holy book"... is why people engage in VERY poorly informed, frankly almost completely ignorant of the subject matter, criticism?... putting out such energy and time 'shooting down' the bible... again it's more of a "because they started it" type of idea... like a dad may hear as a response to "don't make me stop this car"... "they started it" comes from the back seat...


I find the above statement to be arrogant in the extreme. You are assuming WRONGLY that I have no knowledge of the Bible and your argument is based on that premise. Why do you take it upon yourself to assume I am poorly informed without having been given a reason to do so.

You spoke of circular logic and, in so doing , you have fouled your own nest. Let's put your argument this way:

Those who criticize the Bible are largely ignorant of it
They have not read the Bible sufficiently to qualify them as critics
When they do read the Bible thoroughly they will not criticize it because they will know that it is true
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
To say Jesus never existed for lack of proof is foolish from a historical standpoint. Most historical and biblical studies scolars agree that there was a Jesus from Galilee who was regarded as a teacher and healer. There is also more documentation from multiple sources on Jesus that of any one man in history.

The arguement has been argued time and again as to why the Bible is more reliable that most historical texts that are taken as fact. The first gospel was written in the same generation as Jesus himself and the final is dated 70 years after his death. The textual accuracy is also superior to most historical texts. Out of 27 books in the New Testament only 120 words are questionable, 120, out of 27 books. Around 15k complete copies of the New Testament exists dating back to 120 AD and 25k partial copies some going back to as far as 45 AD that maintain and almost 99% textual accuracy rating. This is far superior to other historical texts suchs as Caesars Gallic Wars. Not only is that text textualy inferior, its source os compromised and proven to be unreliable yet the account is taken as historicaly accurate, why?

If you refuse to believe the Bible is hostoricaly accurate then you must also believe that books such as Plato's Republic and the Gallic Wars are also unreliable to name a few. No other manuscript is as accurate as the NT of the Bible dating back to the same period.
 
nikkmon said:
To say Jesus never existed for lack of proof is foolish from a historical standpoint. Most historical and biblical studies scolars agree that there was a Jesus from Galilee who was regarded as a teacher and healer. There is also more documentation from multiple sources on Jesus that of any one man in history.
Click to expand...

This is patently untrue. None of the writings about Jesus are demonstrated to be contemporary. The oldest text that mentions Jesus is the gospel of Mark, written by an anonymous author and its primary verifications come from the other gospels which rely heavily on it as a genuine text. Nor is there "more documentation from multiple sources on Jesus [than] any one man in history." At least not if you exclude the last two centuries. But if you know otherwise, please feel free to quantify your claim.
The arguement has been argued time and again as to why the Bible is more reliable that most historical texts that are taken as fact.
Click to expand...

And, as an argument, it has failed time and again by the mere examination of the archaeological record alone.

The first gospel was written in the same generation as Jesus himself and the final is dated 70 years after his death.
Click to expand...

An assumption that is not demonstrable and hotly debated even among theological scholars.

The textual accuracy is also superior to most historical texts. Out of 27 books in the New Testament only 120 words are questionable, 120, out of 27 books.
Click to expand...

I question them all. Your statement here is, again, not demonstrable and is taken on pure faith alone. Indeed, I would suggest that the contradictory claims of Jesus' alleged genealogy number, in words, more than 120. Luke puts it through Mary; Matthew puts it through Joseph. Of course, believers question little to nothing of their religious mythology, since the bag of tricks their religions use includes mechanisms that make inquiry and criticism taboo.

Around 15k complete copies of the New Testament exists dating back to 120 AD and 25k partial copies some going back to as far as 45 AD that maintain and almost 99% textual accuracy rating.
Click to expand...

This is a fallacious argument since its an appeal to popularity and multitude. The mere existence of many "copies" of a mythology do not imply a truth value.

This is far superior to other historical texts suchs as Caesars Gallic Wars. Not only is that text textualy inferior, its source os compromised and proven to be unreliable yet the account is taken as historicaly accurate, why?
Click to expand...

Textually inferior in what way? In spelling? In grammar? I see no reason to accept you as an authority on either, so I'm going to assume the inferiority comes from the alleged message. But the obvious answer is, "so what?" I have no stake in the factual accuracy of "Caesar's Gallic wars." If new data were revealed that discounted their occurrence, my worldview would not change or alter. The same cannot be said, with regard to the worldviews of many, for the extraordinary and utterly nonsensical claims surrounding the myth of Jesus. Your singular and un-authoritative opinion of the "superiority" of biblical mythology carries zero weight.

If you refuse to believe the Bible is hostoricaly accurate then you must also believe that books such as Plato's Republic and the Gallic Wars are also unreliable to name a few. No other manuscript is as accurate as the NT of the Bible dating back to the same period.
Click to expand...

You're full of shit, to put it as mildly as permissible and yet remain accurate. This is yet another fallacious argument since the analogy is weak. The "books of Plato" make no extraordinary claims about Plato's ability to heal the blind, walk on water, rise as a zombie, or save the human race. Furthermore, if Plato's historicity were shown to be a fabrication, it wouldn't diminish the value of Platonic philosophy since it wouldn't matter who came up with thought experiments like The Allegory of the Cave in order to have an appreciation in it. Indeed, it could be said that the philosophies attributed to the alleged Plato far out-weigh any of the silly parables and sayings of Jesus, which, while admittedly wise and good for the most part, were not great thought experiments or masterpieces of philosophy.

In the end, your post is yet another example of blind faith, following with unquestioned abandon the superstition you've been conditioned to accept.

Good luck with that.
 
Photizo said:
Christians cannot demonize anyone...what's odd to me is your position i.e. despite your knowledge/understanding, you remain unrepentant. That, to me, is odd.
Click to expand...

Sorry to interrupt your train of thought but I can't wait to break the news to you. If you talk to Dr. Mabuse he will explain that the Bible is an anti-religion book. He will also tell you why you have insufficient knowledge of the Bible to understand why it is an anti-religion book.

I think you owe it to yourself and others to find out where you have gone astray before indulging in any further pontificating.
 
Textually inferior in what way? In spelling? In grammar? I see no reason to accept you as an authority on either, so I'm going to assume the inferiority comes from the alleged message. But the obvious answer is, "so what?" I have no stake in the factual accuracy of "Caesar's Gallic wars." If new data were revealed that discounted their occurrence, my worldview would not change or alter. The same cannot be said, with regard to the worldviews of many, for the extraordinary and utterly nonsensical claims surrounding the myth of Jesus. Your singular and un-authoritative opinion of the "superiority" of biblical mythology carries zero weight.
Click to expand...

Textualy accurate means that the text has remained almost exactly the same in copies as in the original. 99% accurate meaning thats the percentage that is exact as to the original. So when I say the NT is textualy superior to other texts of the period, thats what it means. As far a validity of copies and their accuracy to the original, the NT excels.


I have no opinion of the "mythology" and did not state the bible is more accuarate simply because of the message carried within it. I offered evidence to the fact that the bible is far more reliable, from a textual accuracy standpoint than other texts of the same period that have a 1k + year gap from original to copy, where as the NT has only a 100 year gap.

As for my other points I see no challenge to them from your post. Just a mere "well thats still under debate", or "just by looking at it I can tell its incorrect". You came with a gun but no ammo in my humble opinion. You can choose to not buy into the message of the Bible for whatever reasons, but you cannot simply disregard the manuscript and its accuracy simply because you dont like what it says.
 
nikkmon said:
Textualy accurate means that the text has remained almost exactly the same in copies as in the original. 99% accurate meaning thats the percentage that is exact as to the original.
Click to expand...

Please. Produce for us this "original" so that we might examine it. Cite the source for the "original" biblical manuscript(s).

Otherwise, not a single shred of what you've said so far has any merit whatever.

As for my other points I see no challenge to them from your post.
Click to expand...

Of course you wouldn't. That would mean you'd have to answer them and those that unquestioningly accept religious doctrine can't do this.
 
SkinWalker said:
Please. Produce for us this "original" so that we might examine it. Cite the source for the "original" biblical manuscript(s).

Otherwise, not a single shred of what you've said so far has any merit whatever.
Click to expand...

Not a single shred?...and why is that?...because you think have a license to frame the debate along irrational/illogical lines to suit your purposes (in this case obsfucation)? He already told you the copies are reliable...the merit of what he's said so far is not directly dependent upon producing an original manuscript anymore than your superstitions concerning origins are dependent upon eyewitnesses. If you are so interested, do your own research and learn why this is the case for the extant NT manuscripts, then come back with your critiques--but don't pull that kind of crap quoted above. He's given sound, valid replies such that he's forced you to stoop to/attempt desperate tactics that are as hilarious as they are pathetic. [Flame Deleted]
 
Last edited:
Photizo said:
Not a single shred?... [Flame Deleted] He already told you the copies are reliable...
Click to expand...

He said they are "99% accurate" to the "original." I'm asking what that "original" is since I've never heard of an "original" biblical manuscript of either the OT or the NT. I'd like to know what this "original" is and where I might examine it.

the merit of what he's said so far is not directly dependent upon producing an original manuscript anymore than your superstitions concerning origins are dependent upon eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...

First, I have no superstitions regarding creation. Second, the merit of what he's said is completely dependent upon an original manuscript if he's claiming that there's a level of quality based upon it.

If you are so interested, do your own research and learn why this is the case for the extant NT manuscripts, then come back with your critiques--
Click to expand...

You're being silly. I'm not making a claim -he is. In order for me to have a point at which to begin any research, I would need to know what the sources are that inform his claim.
 
Myles said:
Sorry to interrupt your train of thought but I can't wait to break the news to you. If you talk to Dr. Mabuse he will explain that the Bible is an anti-religion book. He will also tell you why you have insufficient knowledge of the Bible to understand why it is an anti-religion book.

I think you owe it to yourself and others to find out where you have gone astray before indulging in any further pontificating.
Click to expand...

Dr. Mabuse is certainly free to address me if he feels so inclined...that the bible is anti religion is self evident, no big revelation there...I have sufficient knowledge to communicate all that God intends to communicate through me to this august forum, and I will continue to communicate this knowledge as the Spirit directs me.

What you "think" bears little, if any, resemblance to reality.
 
SkinWalker said:
He said they are "99% accurate" to the "original." I'm asking what that "original" is since I've never heard of an "original" biblical manuscript of either the OT or the NT. I'd like to know what this "original" is and where I might examine it.
Click to expand...

Yes, like Herod wanted to know the whereabouts of the Christ Child that he might worship him along with the Magi.

SkinWalker said:
First, I have no superstitions regarding creation. Second, the merit of what he's said is completely dependent upon an original manuscript if he's claiming that there's a level of quality based upon it.
Click to expand...

This is just another lame attempt at obsfucation on your part.

First, I said nothing about "your superstitions regarding creation", rather, your superstitions regarding origins. I stand by that comment.

Second, we're not 'talking' directly about what he said, we're talking about what you said--specifically, that "not a single shred of what you've said so far has any merit whatever." This is simply not the case as not every "shred of what he said" depends for its merit upon him producing/you examining an original NT manuscript.

SkinWalker said:
You're being silly. I'm not making a claim -he is. In order for me to have a point at which to begin any research, I would need to know what the sources are that inform his claim.
Click to expand...

You're shirking responsibility. He's making the claim, you doubt it. Go do the research to check out if or not what he says about the NT documents (including issues surrounding the reliability/integrity/faithfulness of these same documents with respect to the original manuscripts) is accurate. If you discover his claims to be false or inaccurate then post your findings and expose his error. Simple.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top