How Do we Know the Gospels are Historical?

http://www.strangenotions.com ^ | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

[NKP_Vet]

Among Catholics and atheists, is easy to exchange convinced assertions: “The gospels are 100% God’s holy Word and every bit is historically accurate!” or “The gospels are fairy tales!” However there is a discipline called “Biblical scholarship” in which scholars do some very interesting work determining just which parts of the gospels they think are reliable and which they think are not. Their conclusions are, of course, debated. That’s what scholars do. Their work is fascinating and it is worth taking some time to look at just a smidgen of their methodology and conclusions.

Bible scholars are most interested in trying to determine whether the original gospels record eyewitness accounts, and whether those original versions have been transmitted accurately. To do this scholars consider several factors: 1) authorship and date of composition, 2) intention and genre, 3) gospel sources and oral tradition, 4) textual criticism, 5) historical authenticity of specific sayings and narrative events.

One of the difficult aspects for modern people to understand is just what kind of document the gospels are. Everyone can admit that they are not written as purely historical documents, but neither are they simply fabulous fables, myths, or fairy tales. In continuity with the Old Testament, and consistent with their Jewish origins, we have documents which are presented as history and have plenty of historically verifiable details, but which also have supernatural and otherworldly elements to them

[redleghunter]

Perhaps I am looking for some evidence from you to refute the history of Scriptures.

True a poster made the claim “history tells the story.” For a believer that is reassuring or even for a seeker. But for the skeptic as yourself, it matters not. So please present your case on why the OT and NT Scriptures are myth and lack historical evidence.

As an aside note, I try to be fair in all discussions. So I have to give you notice that in order to make your claim against the Scriptures you may just have to read them, examine them.

[daniel1212]

Since you are simply parroting atheistic assertions here are some site which deal with these and such:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wally01.html
http://www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers.htm (responses Alleged Bible contradictions)
http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/Contra/index.html (responses to Alleged Bible contradictions)
http://net-burst.net/hot/ Issues That Make Christians Squirm!
http://www.existence-of-god.com /
http://www.truefreethinker.com/
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html
http://www.atheistdelusion.net/
http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45&mode=detail (Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?)
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/governments.htm
http://www.scholarscorner.com/apologia/deathtoll.html - Atheism’s Body Count
http://www.rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
http://freedomdefender.blogspot.com/2005/05/atrocities-of-atheism-episode-i.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html
http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45&mode=detail
Biblical Prophecies in the Light of History By Jim And Judy Stocker
http://www.harvardhouse.com/site-map.htm
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html
http://www.kingdavid8.com/_full_article.php?id=fe54916c-64bc-11e1-8f66-6067e33f8f11
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/pagan_copycat.html
http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zeitgeistpartone.shtml (”Zeitgeist” Online Movie: Part One Refuted)

I appreciate being able to find these overall worthy sites, yet note that as with people, referencing links to other sites does not necessarily mean I agree with everything a site (or their hosting company) contains, which can be substantial.

[redleghunter]

I've already stated it's a myth. I don't care what the claims are. The *myth* has survived.

That isn't exactly an argument now is it? If you like just dropping out of warp, firing a few torpedos and leaving again, then say so. Because it is clear you do not want to present any evidence to refute the Biblical claims.

Your current "argument" is an assertion (which is not an argument) that the Hebrew and Christian faith are based on myths. So make your argument.

[ShadowAce]

Incorrect. I've made no mention about Christianity. Only that the Buddhist myth has survived for 2,000 years.

BTW--I will make no argument claiming that Christianity is a myth. I am quite a strong, conservative Christian.

[Fuzz]

“Perhaps I am looking for some evidence from you to refute the history of Scriptures.”

Which scriptures? Buddhist? And why?

“True a poster made the claim “history tells the story.” For a believer that is reassuring or even for a seeker. But for the skeptic as yourself, it matters not.”

So history doesn’t matter to me?

“So please present your case on why the OT and NT Scriptures are myth and lack historical evidence.”

Why? Are you confusing me with someone else?

How can, what in all honesty appears to be an obvious and logical refutation of the statement “A myth can’t survive 2,000 years.” by providing only one group of myths, (Hinduism or Shintoism or Ancient Egyptian religions and myths could also have been presented as examples), translates into an obligation to provide you with evidence disproving the one you prescribe to?

[daniel1212]

“A myth can’t survive 2,000 years.”

Have you maybe heard of Buddhism?

See post 102 above. Those for whom Scripture is the assured Word of God and supreme transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims (as is abundantly evidenced to be therein) are the best defenders of it.

Rome at best sends a mixed message, with one of the post V2 controversies being whether " the sake of our salvation" refers to only to plenary faithful transmission of salvfic truths, in CCC 107: "the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#104 cf. PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS

Which sees differing interpretations with the Roman community.

And for decades Rome has taught and teaches liberal revisionism via its sanctioned notes in her New American Bible, such as,

Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: the footnotes on which state, in part, “an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth”) are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.

The story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used mere "traditions" to teach a religious lesson. After all, its understanding that “Inspiration is guidance” means that Scripture is “God’s word and man’s word.”

Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional." (4. "Inspiration and Revelation," p. 18)

More .

I myself first became aware of the basic liberal bent in the NAB when reading the notes in the NAB, St. Joseph’s medium size, Catholic publishing co., copyright 1970, which has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur stamps of sanction. The NAB has gone through revisions, but I have found the same O. T. footnotes in “The Catholic Study Bible,” Oxford University Press, 1990, which also has the proper stamps, and uses the 1970 O.T. text and the 1986 revised N.T. And a Roman Catholic apologist using the 1992 version also lists some of the same errors described below, and is likewise critical of the liberal scholarship behind it (though he elsewhere denigrated Israel as illegally occupying Palestine), while a Roman Catholic cardinal is also crtical of the NAB on additional grounds.

And as noted below, even the 2011 NAB Revised Edition (NABRE) contains some of the errors of liberal scholarship. (http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/index.cfm)

[BwanaNdege]

Excellent!

Thanks for that!

[sargon]

There are literally hundreds of sects in the world, each with its own bizarre "holy writings" (e.g., the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Tibetan Book of the Dead), about which you could make the same claim.

Objectively analyzed, all these other writings you mention are patently inferior.

[redleghunter]

“A myth can’t survive 2,000 years.”

Well present evidence 'it' is a myth.

[Fuzz]

“A myth can’t survive 2,000 years.”

“Well present evidence ‘it’ is a myth.”

That what is a myth? And no.

The claim was made that myths can’t survive that long so the claims must be true. If that is a true statement, then there are an abundance of belief systems that can claim to be at least more true than Christianity. This isn’t a statement declaring the ‘truth’ of any of the myths, religions or belief systems mentioned.

[Elsie]

Nonsense.

I'll have to assume you meant the 'not a religion' part.

Sense...

Buddhism is a nontheistic religion.

To many, Buddhism goes beyond religion and is more of a philosophy or 'way of life'.

You are right that some consider it to be a religion; but to me, a 'religion' with NO GOD at it's center is NOT a religion - but a philosophy/way of life.

[Elsie]

I am not mormon. I am speaking of the gospels, not mormon writings. Please do not ping me on mormon topics.

I'm sorry that Mormonism has co-opted the word GOSPEL from Christianity. Be sure that I will not 'ping' you, except in response to something you've written on FR.

You were making a point about historical accuracy; something that TCOJCOLDS has ZERO credibility on.

I'll bet I get ZERO response from the Mormons that I did ping!

[Elsie]

...but the bible is missing an important link to the holy spirit...

Good ol' Roy!

Still has his ardent followers I see!

---

"Did GOD really say..."

---

 

Deconstructing Linus: Portrait of a True Believing Pumpkinist as a Young Man

What does the Great Pumpkin offer Linus? Why does Linus spend every Halloween in the pumpkin patch, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to appear? Is it about the toys?

"Each year on Halloween night, the Great Pumpkin rises out of the pumpkin patch that he thinks is the most sincere and flies through the air with his pack of toys for all the good little children in the world."

No. This is about sincerity, a subjective standard by any definition.

I wonder if Linus blames himself every year for not picking the most sincere pumpkin patch for his vigil?

I wonder if other Great Pumpkinists castigate Linus by asserting if he were more in tune with the Spirit of the Great Pumpkin, if he were more prayerful, if he read the Holy Writ of the Great Pumpkin with a greater sincerity, that he could indeed rise to the challenge and, via the Spirit, be lead to choose the most sincere pumpkin patch?

I wonder how many years Linus will feel guilty for this failure and blame himself for receiving no answer no matter how sincere he believes himself to be?

I wonder if Linus ever gets frustrated because there is no objective way to measure sincerity? And if he realizes there is no objective standard for such a thing, I wonder if it ever creeps into his mind that his annual mission is nothing more than mindless busywork?

I wonder, does Linus ever has doubts?

For the time being, however, Linus will put aside his doubts and, perhaps as a means of proving his sincerity, begins to proselyte among his friends for converts. Most shrug him off. But Sally, who has a crush on him, believes Linus and agrees to spend Halloween in Linus’ Pumpkin Patch.

Linus then explains that by using positive language and positive thinking, they may be able to attract the Great Pumpkin to their Patch. He also cautions Sally that negative language and negative thinking will cause the Great Pumpkin to pass them by.

There is no room for doubt when one is a Great Pumpkinist. One should never say if the Great Pumpkin comes but always when the Great Pumpkin comes. "One little slip like that, can cause the Great Pumpkin to pass you by!" It’s hard to imagine a benevolent icon such as the Great Pumpkin punishing TBPs (True Believing Pumkinists) for such a minor infraction, but there you have it.

Sally: The Birth of an Ex-Pumpkinist

Because Sally loves her “sweet baboo” Linus, she sets aside her own Halloween plans of trick-or-treating and a Halloween party in order to spend the evening in the Pumpkin Patch. She converts to Great Pumpkinism because she loves Linus. She respects his opinion. And she wants to make him happy and be supportive. And besides, if it’s really true, WOW! Wouldn’t that be fantastic?

But in the end, the only Being that shows up in the Pumpkin Patch is Snoopy. Linus, believing Snoopy to be the Great Pumpkin, swoons into an ecstatic faint, happy in the knowledge that he has finally deciphered the Great Pumpkin’s standard for sincerity. But, alas, it is a misplaced hope, and when Linus regains consciousness, there is not only no Great Pumpkin there to reward him, there is one upset little girl.

"I was robbed! I spent the whole night waiting for the Great Pumpkin when I could have been out for tricks or treats! Halloween is over and I missed it! You blockhead! You kept me up all night waiting for the Great Pumpkin and all that came was a beagle!"

"I didn't get a chance to go out for tricks or treats! And it was all your fault! I'll sue! What a fool I was. And I could have had candy apples and gum! And cookies and money and all sorts of things! But no, I had to listen to you! You blockhead. What a fool I was. Trick or treats come only once a year. And I missed it by sitting in a pumpkin patch with a blockhead. You owe me restitution!"

Luckily for Sally, she only missed one Halloween. And though she is demanding restitution, because her participation was voluntary, she will never receive said restitution. She’ll simply have to accept the experience as one of life’s absurdities and move on.

However, one can hope that this experience has made Sally a more skeptical person, so that the next time she is presented with such fantastic claims, she’ll perhaps be inclined to do her research before committing any time, money or emotion.

After all, fantastic claims should be supported by fantastic evidence, right?

The question now becomes, has this experience made Linus a skeptic? After yet again not having his Pumpkin Patch recognized as sincere and after having endangered his friendship with Sally, will he continue to believe?

In spite of a complete and utter lack of evidence pointing to the existence of the Great Pumpkin, and a complete and utter lack of the Great Pumpkin’s Promise ever having been fulfilled, Linus is a True Believing Pumpkinist to the core. To even admit the possibility that he may be wrong would be to negate all those years of hard work and sincere belief. Linus simply cannot turn his back on his belief.

So if Linus doesn't become an ex-Pumpkinist, what is his strategy? Well, he’s going to keep on trying, isn't he?

"What do you mean, 'stupid'? Just wait until next year. I'll find a pumpkin patch, and I'll sit in that pumpkin patch and it'll be a sincere pumpkin patch, and the Great Pumpkin will come! Just you wait and see! I'll sit in that pumpkin patch, and I'll see the Great Pumpkin. Just wait until next year!"

[fabian]

“be still and know that I am God...” “pray uncessingly” ...of course that is NOT talking to God all the time! The church has lost the way to that stillness and God. All most of your types have is a bunch of learned and memorized words and verses, devoid of real life and good energy. Sad what the apostacy has done to Jesus’ mission. Thank Godcfor people like Roy that actually help bring people to that stillness’. Others, like you, are so into your self learned fake salvation, that the real truth butts and burns you...because you really are not yourself.

[Elsie]

“be still and know that I am God...”

Good advice.

[mad_as_he$$]

Extra credit for use of: “pseudepigraphic”

[Fuzz]

“I’ll have to assume you meant the ‘not a religion’ part.”

I’ll then assume when you said Buddhism is not a myth then you meant the teachings of Buddhism are a true religion, or at least a true philosophy/way of life.

[Elsie]

Then you assumed wrongly. One can see and touch Buddhism. It exists. It is NOT a myth.

Now Buddha himself might be a myth; I've no way of knowing.

I explained (quite well I thought) that SOME consider Buddhism to be a religion (true or not is in the eye of the beholder) to me it is NOT a 'religion', for it has no GOD.

[ShadowAce]

Yes, it does.

[Elsie]