The NT is not a reliable document about historical events

[Danmark]

LilytheT:

No. In fact, the data themselves make the myth scenario impossible.

1. If we approach the NT with the same neutral, objective, and scientific approach with which we approach every other ancient document, the NT proves to be the most reliable of all. No book in history has been attacked, cut-up, reconstructed, and stood on its head as much as the NT, and yet it lives, and furthermore, the story, written over many years, holds together.

This debate suggests the statement above is wrong.
All of the Gospels were written by anonymous authors years after the events; are loaded with hearsay, and full of bias since they were written to support various Church claims.
They contradict each other at critical points, such as the resurrection, but essentially agree when they copy each other. Many scholars believe the original source documents they relied upon, no longer exist, just like Joseph's Smith's Golden Plates.

The stories do not survive the academic historical critical approach.

Many of the 'documents' are admitted forgeries. All of the Gospels were written after Paul's early letters and Paul seems completely uninformed about most of the stories in the Gospel accounts.

[1213]

...Then you have things like in the book of John which says contradictory things about the nature of Jesus, whether he is the Father or the Father is greater than him,

Where exactly it is said in the Bible that Jesus is the Father?

...so why are there differences at all between the gospels if it is so historically accurate? Thanks.

If there are four testimonies, it is probably that they are a little different, because people remember, see, hear and keep important different things. If Gospels are 4 testimonies, it would be improbable, if they would be exactly same.

[joejoeson]

...Then you have things like in the book of John which says contradictory things about the nature of Jesus, whether he is the Father or the Father is greater than him,

Where exactly it is said in the Bible that Jesus is the Father?

...so why are there differences at all between the gospels if it is so historically accurate? Thanks.

If there are four testimonies, it is probably that they are a little different, because people remember, see, hear and keep important different things. If Gospels are 4 testimonies, it would be improbable, if they would be exactly same.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
http://biblehub.com/john/10-30.htm

I already said that it is reasonable to assume 4 testimonies would be a little different, but I said that the problem is the bible is supposedly written and/or inspired by God so A) why would these testimonies be different if the inspiration of God is supposed to be perfect, and B) why would God need testimonies of humans in the first place if he can see everything at all times?

And also, none of the testimonies were written at the time of the life of Jesus, so in legal language that would be called a secondhand account.

[Zzyzx]

.

If there are four testimonies, it is probably that they are a little different, because people remember, see, hear and keep important different things. If Gospels are 4 testimonies, it would be improbable, if they would be exactly same.

Many or most Bible Believers seem unaware that the gospels were copied from one another and/or from common sources. Theologians and scholars are well aware of "The Synoptic Problem" but in-the-pew, everyday, laymen Christians seem ignorant of or in denial of what cannot be denied. Why is that?

"The Synoptic Problem, briefly stated, is the attempt to explain how Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree, yet disagree, in these three areas: content, wording, and order... Synoptic Problem is the term that has been used to describe the task in determining the precise relationships between the first three gospels. Scholars note the alternating array of agreements and disagreements among the three gospels and wonder why and how the disparities came to be. Why, on the one hand, do the Synoptic Gospels have so much material in common? About 90 percent of Mark's material is found in Matthew, while about 50 percent of Mark is found in Luke. In addition, nearly 235 verses in Matthew and Luke are similar to one another. In those places where agreement appears, incredible similarities can extend even to identical tense and mood for every word in an entire verse (or more). Given that Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, these similarities are even more asounding. In some places, the Evangelists have identical parenthetical material," (Williams, Two Gospels From One, p. 22-23).
http://www.theopedia.com/Synoptic_problem

Bold added

[Ancient of Years]

All of the Gospels were written by anonymous authors years after the events; are loaded with hearsay, and full of bias since they were written to support various Church claims.
They contradict each other at critical points, such as the resurrection, but essentially agree when they copy each other. Many scholars believe the original source documents they relied upon, no longer exist, just like Joseph's Smith's Golden Plates.

The stories do not survive the academic historical critical approach.

Many of the 'documents' are admitted forgeries. All of the Gospels were written after Paul's early letters and Paul seems completely uninformed about most of the stories in the Gospel accounts.

I agree with all of the above except the bolded parts.

At the time the various Gospels were written there was not much in the way of an organized church, so ‘supporting church claims’ is not a very meaningful concept. From what I can see the several Gospels were written to further the agendas of the individual authors. This is why there are such differences and contradictions.

While there appear to be various old traditions that were incorporated into Mark, and via Mark into Matthew and Luke, I do not believe there was such a thing as the Q document that Matthew and Luke used but Mark did not.

Many of the letters attributed to Paul are undoubtedly pseudipigrapha, that is, written by others who added Paul’s name. But the Gospel writers Mark, Matthew and Luke never claimed to be the personages they were later identified with. And only in the probably added on last chapter of John is the claim made that it was written by the ‘beloved disciple’. So calling the Gospels forgeries would not be justified.

[Danmark]

All of the Gospels were written by anonymous authors years after the events; are loaded with hearsay, and full of bias since they were written to support various Church claims.
They contradict each other at critical points, such as the resurrection, but essentially agree when they copy each other. Many scholars believe the original source documents they relied upon, no longer exist, just like Joseph's Smith's Golden Plates.

The stories do not survive the academic historical critical approach.

Many of the 'documents' are admitted forgeries. All of the Gospels were written after Paul's early letters and Paul seems completely uninformed about most of the stories in the Gospel accounts.

I agree with all of the above except the bolded parts.

At the time the various Gospels were written there was not much in the way of an organized church, so ‘supporting church claims’ is not a very meaningful concept. From what I can see the several Gospels were written to further the agendas of the individual authors. This is why there are such differences and contradictions.

While there appear to be various old traditions that were incorporated into Mark, and via Mark into Matthew and Luke, I do not believe there was such a thing as the Q document that Matthew and Luke used but Mark did not.

Many of the letters attributed to Paul are undoubtedly pseudipigrapha, that is, written by others who added Paul’s name. But the Gospel writers Mark, Matthew and Luke never claimed to be the personages they were later identified with. And only in the probably added on last chapter of John is the claim made that it was written by the ‘beloved disciple’. So calling the Gospels forgeries would not be justified.

Thanks for the clarifications, particularly about 'the Church.' I admit I do not have a clear idea about when "THE Church" emerged from a number of different sources, traditions or individuals. There was still dispute even after the councils convened to 'fix' the canon. At any rate, I agree, your analysis is more accurate than to suggest there was a single, unified organization exerting control over the Gospels and did not mean to imply that was the case.

[1213]

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
http://biblehub.com/john/10-30.htm

Jesus said also according to the Bible:

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11

that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21

If we accept you meaning to “I and the Father are one�, then also all disciples of Jesus are God. I don’t think that is what the Bible or Jesus is saying.

I already said that it is reasonable to assume 4 testimonies would be a little different, but I said that the problem is the bible is supposedly written and/or inspired by God so A) why would these testimonies be different if the inspiration of God is supposed to be perfect, and B) why would God need testimonies of humans in the first place if he can see everything at all times?

I have understood that the testimonies (Gospels) are what the 4 witnesses saw and heard. They wrote them, or told them to someone who wrote them. And they are for disciples of Jesus and other people, not to God. Because of that, it is not reasonable to assume that they should have all knowledge. It is enough that they tell the story from their point of view by what they knew.

And also, none of the testimonies were written at the time of the life of Jesus, so in legal language that would be called a secondhand account.

So, if police come to investigate murder and writes the testimony of eyewitness 4 years after the murder, the writing and testimony is not valid?

[1213]

Many or most Bible Believers seem unaware that the gospels were copied from one another and/or from common sources.

And why you believe that there is or was a “common source�? Do we have any real evidence for that? And if there is, wouldn’t it just be supporting evidence for the events if we would have writing that is older?

[Regens Küchl]

...so why are there differences at all between the gospels if it is so historically accurate? Thanks.

If there are four testimonies, it is probably that they are a little different, because people remember, see, hear and keep important different things. If Gospels are 4 testimonies, it would be improbable, if they would be exactly same.

Or else there were four different Jesuses with very resembling friends and lives

That would explain away all differences

[Hamsaka]

Many or most Bible Believers seem unaware that the gospels were copied from one another and/or from common sources.

And why you believe that there is or was a “common source�? Do we have any real evidence for that? And if there is, wouldn’t it just be supporting evidence for the events if we would have writing that is older?

1213, this is something you should be able to confirm (or not) for yourself, with an internet search. I'm not chiding you at all. If I were in your shoes, and what I was hearing did not match up with what I'd been told, or knew, I'd do some internet research

A good place to start is Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source . You can look into the references on the bottom of the page.

There appears to be a LOT of scholarly research that supports Zz's assertion, and very simple to find.

[Zzyzx]

.

Many or most Bible Believers seem unaware that the gospels were copied from one another and/or from common sources.

And why you believe that there is or was a “common source�? Do we have any real evidence for that?

Notice VERY carefully that I said specifically and exactly "Many or most Bible Believers seem unaware that the gospels were copied from one another and/or from common sources."

Notice also that "and/or" does NOT make a claim that either one is preferred or correct (or more correct than the other). Reproduction of extensive passages with exact wording is strong indication of copying of SOMETHING – perhaps each other or another source used by both. That is not known to scholars and theologians – but there is SPECULATION about earlier sources (which do not exist for examination).

And if there is, wouldn’t it just be supporting evidence for the events if we would have writing that is older?

There is speculation about earlier documents. However, they are only hypothetical or imaginary since no such things exist for examination. I do not support nor dispute the existence of hypothetical documents. However, there is ample evidence in the gospels themselves that there was considerable copying from one another or from somewhere else. Identical extensive wording is not likely to have been spontaneous.

Matthew and Luke (whoever they may have been) could have copied Mark (whoever wrote that gospel) or all three could have copied some unknown other person / writing. If anyone wishes to defend a related position they should feel free to do so.