Are the 4 Evangelists historians?

[marco]

We occasionally get comments about the historical treatment of the gospels. Some people take exception to them not being considered as "real history."

Would you consider Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as historians?

Are there any differences between the gospel writers and say, Livy, Tacitus or Josephus or indeed any known historian?

[JehovahsWitness]

Here's what is written: " Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,"

In which dictionary is "about" synonymous with "precisely"?

Fair enough, I should not have said "precisely" for his age . Let me rephrase: We know precisely the year Jesus started his ministry. To argue that the gospel writers were vague on this matter is to grossly misrepresent the facts.

Christ is not tied down to calendar details....

Historians would identify the year of a consul or the year in the reign of Tiberius but if they said "Tiberio imperatore", (when Tiberius was Emperor), it is too vague.

LUKE 3: 1-2

In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, [1] when Pontius Pilate[2] was governor of Ju-dea, Herod [3]was district ruler of Gali-lee, Philip [4]his brother was district ruler of the country of Ituraea and Trach-o-nitis, and Ly-sani-as [5]was district ruler of Abilene, in the days of chief priest Annas [6]and of Caia-phas[7]

• Pontius Pilate had his rulership over Judea from 26 to 36 AD.
• Caiaphas was high priest during the same period, 26 to 35 AD.
• Herod Phillip II, tetarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis was born in 4 BC and died in 34 AD.
• Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, was born in 20 BC and died in 40 AD.
• Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, ruled the province between c.14 to 29 AD.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

There are no exact dates.

DATES OR YEARS?

Ancient history does not always deal with the precise dates of events (ie day-month-year). That is not to say there are none (the bibe, for example does stipulate the day, month and year of some events), but if we were to dismiss all historical events because we dont know the precise date they occurred, I suspect the annuals of history would be much reduced. Much of ancient history is placed chronologically by year and time of year (ie season) and in this the gospel accounts are not found lacking.

STILL HISTORY

we don't know when he was born, [...] this would not disqualify the rest from being history if there was some eventual pinning down of Christ with the surrounding times.

Emphasis MINE

As for Jesus age we know he was about 30 years old at the time he was baptised; "about" as in , he was 30 years and some months, ie in his 31st year of life. (Jesus was 6 months older than John the baptist, since temple service began at 30 John would probably have began his ministry at that age).

CONCLUSION Not knowing the precise date of Jesus birth does not disqualify the gospels from being histoy since there is indeed a {quote} "pinning down of Christ with the surrounding times"{ end quote}

JW

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

Paul is a commentator, like ourselves, on Christianity.

This is simply an opinion, and not a very good one. Paul claims to have been an Apostle, and was accepted as an Apostle, by the other original Apostles. Again, you continue to make statements as if they were fact, when there is no evidence to support your opinions, rather, the facts, and evidence fly in the face of your opinion.

In answer to his question: "Quite a lot!" He makes frequent judgments on others

Oh really? Well who exactly are these "others"? For you to be correct here, these "others" would have to be those, "outside" the Church.

telling women, for example, to shut their mouths in church. Nice man.

Three points here. First, the women he was speaking of, would be exactly as you say, "in Church", not "outsiders".

Next, this would have been a command, and not a judgement. No one was, or is, forced to join the Church. Therefore, one who may not like, or disagrees with said rules "inside the Church", is not forced to join, and, or accept these rules, and commands.

There are some who seem to continue to struggle with getting the facts straight. However, when one's goal is to simply cast doubt, then I guess sticking to the actual facts, simply does not matter all that much?

Thirdly, whether, or if, Paul would have been a "nice man" would have nothing whatsoever to do with it. But again, when one is simply attempting to cast doubt, I guess anything can be relevant to such a one?

Christianity is what is practised not what is hoped for.

And this certainly seems to demonstrate one who cares little about the facts involved?

As an example, unless we can demonstrate that Islam teaches behaviors such as was demonstrated on 9-11, then we cannot rightly blame the teachings of Islam, for the way in which it may be practiced by those who claim to adhere to Islam. If Islam does in fact teach such things, it would be then that we could blame such behavior on Islam.

In the same way, if we can demonstrate that Christians have no business, and are in fact commanded not to judge those outside the Church, then the only way one can possibly blame Christianity for such behavior, is if they really are not concerned with the facts, and is simply concerned with placing some sort of, unwarranted blame. Those who would actually be concerned with the truth of the matter, would insist to Christians who would be practicing such things, that their own teachings forbids them from judging those outside the Church.

My friend, Paul is very clear on this,

1 Corn. 5:9-12
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler"not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders?

With this being the case, you cannot possibly blame Christianity when, and if there are Christians who are passing judgement on those who are not members of the Church, and the only way one could do such a thing, is if they are not really concerned with getting to the actual truth of the matter.

Jesus said he came deliberately to set father against son, and to an extent he succeeded, as many Christian branches do cause enmity between family members.

Since you say there are "many", why don't you share a few of them with us, and exactly how this is happening?

Next,"context is king", and it is clear that Jesus even said himself that his earthly ministry was to the house of Israel alone. This ministry would, and did cause this division, but it is not like Jesus was here commanding all Christians to be ready to take up arms against actual family members.

It is abundantly clear that you are taking one sentence quotes from the Biblical record, and attempting to paste these one sentence quotes, onto Christianity as a whole, while ignoring any sort of context.

Christianity saw the burning of Christians by other Christians. This arose from taking some interpretation of some passage.

Oh really? Exactly what passage would that be? Because you see, the way I understand it is, when the Apostles went out to preach the Gospel to others, there would be some who believed, and others who would not, and the Apostles never seemed to go on, or to teach there should be some sort of "killing spree"? Therefore, it is hard to imagine where anyone would get the idea that Christians are to take up arms?

If we restricted ourselves here to "love thy neighbour Christianity" we would be talking theory all the time.

That's just it! I am not asking you to, "talk theory". Rather, I am asking you to stick to the facts.

If he lived he is a nonentity.

Here you are speaking of the author of the two letters to Theophilus, and it seems sort of strange to refer to someone as a "nonentity" who writes letters to a friend, which millions, and maybe even billions have read, and this, "nonentity" seems to continue to consume folks even 2000 years later?

If he is fictional, it at least gives us something to discuss.

I would see nothing worth discussing if this were the case?

I have learned here how people think, how they see things, how they can take some old, translated text and read rainbows into it.

I as well have seen how folks can twist things in order to back what it is, they would prefer to believe concerning these things.

In fact they can take a rainbow and think God put it in the sky to mark a covenant between him and bipeds.

Right! And they can also take on sentence out of a whole context, and make it say whatever they wish.

When we introduce Matthew, we blush.

I don't know who "we" is? But it ain't me!

Introduce Revelation, and we feel sick.

Again, not me!

Struggling for breath in this mud is Jesus who has been traduced by Paul, killer turned saint.

This is certainly an opinion, which you cannot demonstrate. But alas, we are used to this by now.

If billions believe in Christianity and other billions think Jesus was the second last great prophet, it pays us to keep in touch if for no other reason than to determine what shifts the minds of our neighbours.

Agreed! However, I am not the type of person to simply blame the teachings of a particular religion for the behaviors of those who adhere, unless it can be demonstrated this is what is actually taught by said religion.

But of course, we can clearly see there are others, who are really not concerned with the truth of the matter, and are simply on some sort of, crusade.

Apparently for you. Theophilus does the trick. Well at least we can say he loved God.

I'm afraid not? Theophilus would be the recipient of the letters, with whom we know little about. However, we can know a good deal concerning the author these letters, and that is the bad news for folks such as yourself.