Reliability of the Gospels

[Vosur]

Hey there folks,

I've recently watched a video series on YouTube that examined several topics relating to the New Testament, one of them being the reliability of the Gospels as eye-witness testimonies. The relevant videos are in the spoiler below.

Following the discussion in the "Who was Saint Paul?" thread, I figured I should give it a shot and see what our scholars on this board (Bucky Ball, Mark Fulton, Free, etc.) think about them. Of course, anyone else who is interested in the subject can take part in the discussion as well. I'd recommend you to watch the videos first, as they make for a good introduction to the topic. The purpose of this thread will be to determine

a.) whether or not the arguments made in the above videos are sound and
b.) whether or not the Gospels really are reliable as eye-witness testimonies

'Looking forward to your replies.

[cheapthrillseaker]

Disregarding a.) and b.) the last video looks trippy as fuck.

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, ALIENS.

[Free]

Quote:a.) whether or not the arguments made in the above videos are sound and
b.) whether or not the Gospels really are reliable as eye-witness testimonies

Hi Vosur, thanks for the thread.

I have reviewed many of those videos and will review more as this topic progresses.

As far as answering the a) and b) above, I would have to say no to both as being sound and reliable. However, this does not mean that either is incapable of delivering some useful historical information that could be employed in the case for historicity.

Sometimes history is determined by much more than what we see on the surface, so let the digging begin.

[Vosur]

(03-12-2012 05:00 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Disregarding a.) and b.) the last video looks trippy as fuck.

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, ALIENS.

Perhaps Jesus wasn't resurrected, but was abducted by aliens after all.

[Chas]

(03-12-2012 05:13 PM)Vosur Wrote:  

(03-12-2012 05:00 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Disregarding a.) and b.) the last video looks trippy as fuck.

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, ALIENS.

Perhaps Jesus wasn't resurrected, but was abducted by aliens after all.

Well, that explains everything!


Wait. No, it doesn't.

[vindicarblack]

The main problem is that they were written years after the events were purported to happen. They sprinkle real location and some historically provable people but then inject supernatural events around them.

If I were to write about the events that took place during the civil war and used real locations and people but asserted that the south nearly won due to their wizard brigade, you would rightly assume that I was daft or pulling a prank. The same applies for the gospel. The only proof is in the writings themselves so it is self referential and does not establish any of the supernatural events it claims

[Vlad]

There is also the fact that all four gospels contradict each other so much it's not even funny.

[Erxomai]

There are around 25 known gospels. Which are you referring to as reliable?

[houseofcantor]

Paul invented the paradigm for evangelical Judaism, and the so-called gospels are the script for it. Ain't reliable for shit. Why you asking these "scholars" when you got a prophet here, you fucking fuck.

[pianodwarf]

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts. First of all, they are written in the third person; eyewitnesses write in the first person. Secondly, Matthew, Mark and Luke all copy from each other extensively, in many places almost word-for-word. Eyewitnesses don't do this; they write in their own words. Also, they were all written so much later than the events they allegedly report that it is unlikely the authors were even alive at the time of Jesus' life. Even the earliest of the four, Mark, is generally agreed to have been written no earlier than about 65 CE -- roughly thirty years after Jesus' death -- in a day and age when the average life expectancy was something like 33 years or so. There are other indications as well, such as the fact that Mark makes very basic errors in Palestinian geography. And, of course, Luke himself says he is not an eyewitness.

Even if they were eyewitness accounts, though, they should still be regarded with extreme skepticism. Most people unfamiliar with the topic tend to presuppose that eyewitness testimony is some of the best evidence available, when in fact, it's probably just about the worst. Here is a video I like to use to demonstrate this fact. It's a card trick, where the performers start with a deck of cards that have backs of one color, and turn it into a deck of cards of a different color. Watch closely, and see whether you can spot the trick. I have shown this video to probably several dozen people by now, and thus far, no one has caught it. (I didn't, either, when I first watched it.)