To insist that the gospels are not historically authentic requires that a double standard be used for determining the historical authenticity of other documents -vs- the gospels. The bible can be used to prove the bible.
18 comments
Oh see, that's not the problem at all. We can say with some confident that the bible is as old as it claims to be. Say, by comparing it to other documents. The problem arises when you want to prove that the events in the bible occured, since the bible is often the only source that describes events like you know and love them, and the few other sources we find don't mention these events AT ALL.
Like, oh I don't know, the jews being slaves in egypt, rebelling and all that, taking canan by storm. See, there is actual research going into the historical accuracy of the bible, it's not even made to disprove it, but to determine weather or not it actually holds some truth.
The bible, however, can not be used to prove the bible. That's just stupid, you inbread jackass you...
Actually, the bible disproves the bible.
- Which lineage for Jesus is the correct one, Luke's or Matthew's? As they do not agree, only one of them can be correct. If you were planning to say that one is his mother's line and the other is his fathers, please cite a biblical passage supporting this assertion.
- In the synoptic gospels, Jesus cleansed the temple at the end of his ministry. In John, he does it in the beginning. Yeah, yeah, I know, the standard response is he did it twice. However...
- Why do the synoptic gospels say that Jesus died after the first night of Passover, while John says he dies the day before? Did Jesus die twice?
- What were the last words of Jesus? If you say that all of them were spoken, then kindly explain how a man who is DYING OF SUFFOCATION could be so chatty.
Clearly at least some of the information in the bible is wrong. However, there are no independent sources to show us which passages are erroneous. It is entirely possible that ALL of the gospels are wrong.
No, it cant, unless you're prepared to allow the use of the Harry Potter series to prove Harry Potter.
It's not a double standard, it's just comparing lots of different texts from lots of different sources. The more texts that mention a specific data in history, the more certain that data becomes. The only source for the historicity of the gospels are the gospels themselves, and they don't even corroborate each other.
You know, we might have more sources that actually help your book. If, and this is important, you asshats didn't burn books/libraries.
The mark of authenticity is how many seperate accounts or how many cultures have recorded them.
This is why the history of Alexander the great, who precedes the Bible (and is still not mentioned in it) is considered fairly accurate and is backed up even more by his kingdom. Gengis Khan has less evidence then Alexander but still more than anything Biblical.
Worse, the only things found that resemble Biblical stories are from older religions the predate anything in the Bible or the scrolls it's derived from. The Bible is a collection of ancient fables rewritten (badly)to fit one narrative
Historical authenticity requires knowing who wrote an account, for what reason, and when.
The Gospels are not signed. They’re not dated. Church tradition is that they were written by apostles, but that’s not proven. Most scholars date them to some time after the alleged lifetime of the Christ. So, we don’t know who or when, can we even guess ‘why?’
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
