The Gospels are Historically Reliable: 6 Reasons

Historical reliability must be properly defined in view of the conventions of ancient historiography. Mike Licona defines what it means to say an ancient historical work is "historically reliable" then provides 6 criteria that must be met in order for that work to be regarded in that sense.
Mike Licona is Professor of New Testament Studies at Houston Christian University. HCU offers an accredited Master of Arts degree in apologetics that may be completed entirely online or on the HCU campus in Houston. For more information, visit bit.ly/2Wlej6Z.
WEBSITE: www.risenjesus...
FACEBOOK: / michael.r.licona
TWITTER: / drmikelicona
Buy "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus": amzn.to/38vTfNU
Buy "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach": amzn.to/2NOOZkT
Buy "Paul Meets Muhammad": amzn.to/2RdEFoB
Buy "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?": amzn.to/36dzc5C
If you like Mike's work, become a patron by visiting his new Patreon page at / risenjesus
#gospelsreliable

[@Deflate2020]

Thank you, Mike, for this very helpful talk. If you want, copy these chapters below into your video description and KZbin will divide up the video timeline accordingly, which makes it easier for people to navigate your presentation. 0:00 Intro 1:06 The genre of biography (ancient & modern) 4:55 Definition of "historical reliability" 6:08 Reason 1: The authors' intention 12:51 Reason 2: The sources 15:58 Reason 3: Responsible use of sources 17:15 Reason 4: Accurate recalling of stories 31:06 Reason 5: Verification 33:35 Reason 6: Few possible errors 36:37 Summary

[@hhstark8663]

This is my summary of video. Historical reliability = an accurate gist of a historical document where the document can have some errors and skewed by excluding inconvenient or embarrassing facts. Reasons why the gospels are historically reliable: 1. Author intended to write an accurate account, since the gospels are biographical in the genre of history (not poetry or theology) with emphasis on main character and ancestry and deeds. The gospels are NOT fictional ancient novels, since the gospels do NOT include a romance plot and do mention actual historical figures. Both Luke and John and Mark´s gospel explicitly mention that they are recording events. 2. The authors chose the sources judicially. 3. The author used resources responsible. 4. The authors were capable of recalling stories accurately. 5. We can verify numerous reported items. 6. Only a very small percentage of reported items have a reasonable chance of being errors, namely the death of Judas (in gospel of Matthew) and the census of Augustus (in the gospel of Luke). _____________________________________ About the Judas-contradiction, either way we know that he committed suicide and died. :)

[@philochristos]

Mike, I've been reading a lot of stuff lately about the genre of the gospels, and a question occurred to me that so far nobody I've read has addressed. Do you think any of the apocryphal gospels fit the genre of Greco-Roman biography? To me, it seems like they are. The only difference is that they are later, more fanciful, and less reliable. With that being the case, it makes me question how reliable we can assume a document is merely by identifying its genre as Greco-Roman biography. But maybe there is some reason to think the second or third century gospels are NOT Greco-Roman biography, so I thought I'd ask.

[@questioneveryclaim1159]

Is an "accurate gist" really sufficient enough to say a historical event occurred for which we have no verifiable examples can occur?

[@mk05022]

I'm a christian and have also been thinking about that. My thinking is that the synoptic gospels are historically reliable insofar as they are accurately describing a historical person living in 1th century Palestine, his ministry and main events in his life such as different places he went to and his death on the cross and perhaps burial. The details might not be accurate but the main events was historical. However, I don't think a historian using a naturalistic methodology could ever view the accounts of the resurrection in the gospels as historically reliable. A belief in the resurrection would require other presuppositions such as belief in God, miracles and so on. So I would say that a secular historian could claim that the gospels are historically reliable because they give an "accurate gist" of Jesus life and ministry even though much of the details in the narratives would not be accepted and the resurrection narrative would not be seen as historically accurate. If Lycona is making a argument for Jesus resurrection simply on the fact that these the gospels are historically accurate then I think the argument would fail. But if he is saying that the gospels are historically reliable ancient biographies about Jesus life and ministry I would agree but that wouldn't be enough to conclude that the resurrection is historically accurate. Other external presuppositions would be needed for a belief in the resurrection.

[@AnHebrewChild]

where did this talk take place? the stage looks like a Calvary chapel...

[@Iamwrongbut]

To his first point, just because the NT manuscripts are the best ancient manuscripts doesn’t mean they’re accurate. The best of a group of bad things does not imply goodness. It just implies that it is not as bad as the terrible things. Meaning, the NT manuscripts aren’t necessarily reliable, they’re just MORE reliable than other ancient documents, which are extremely unreliable.

[@Iamwrongbut]

@W. George yeah I’ve seen it, along with just about every debate I can find with either of them in it. I really wish he would answer the point I made above but he always seems to sidestep it - especially in the Ehrman debate. Just saying “if you don’t find the NT reliable, then you can’t find anything reliable” isn’t a good argument. It may very well be the case that we have no truly reliable sources for antiquity. That’s why historians spend their whole lives trying to parse what is fact from fiction in these ancient writings.

[@hiddendragon6971]

I'm waiting for these apologists to refute Dennis R MacDonald's "Mythologizing Jesus" or "Luke and Vergil".

[@tomwinchester55]

All of his arguments can be debunked by a good atheist debater......

[@monkkeygawd]

The gospels were all extensions, redactions and embellishments of the 1st one written, Mark. They are incongruent, inconsistent and anonymously written. Anyone who REALLY looks rationally into the facts, will find the gospels wildly unreliable and it would be foolishness to have faith in them. Only the intellectually dishonest, the Intellectually lacking and those who choose to remain in the dark could possibly trust the 4 gospels. Period. Now, if someone likes the stories and can better their life and others lives by creating a loving life narrative out of them, then great. But... they are NOT factual tales.

[@OrdoMallius]

If you applied the same standards as you are applying to gospels 90% of books written before 1800 could not be proven to be factual.

[@monkkeygawd]

​@@OrdoMalliusum... the fairytale aspects of ANY book are LIKELY nonsense. Doesnt mean every detail is made up, but the silly magical things are obviously fake, due to simple reason and accepting reality.

[@qcbtbx]

Excellent presentation. Minor point: the narrative of MLK's marital affairs is untrue.

[@jesusdebunked9403]

the miracles of jesus are mythology

[@resurrectionnerd]

The resurrection narratives grow in the telling which may indicate a legend that grew over time. Pay attention to how "experiencing" the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows: Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned. Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee. Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Acts adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days. Luke omits any appearance to the women. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip. As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports). If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends. www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/

[@purposedrivennihilist7983]

This comment has been debunked numerous amount of times.

[@resurrectionnerd]

@@purposedrivennihilist7983 Ok and what exactly "debunks" it?

[@redpillsatori3020]

@@resurrectionnerd ..just ignore them. Christians just want to pretend that some claims, written down on a piece of papyrus 2000 years ago, somehow proves that people can magically come back from the dead. It's all ridiculous and ex post justifications for what they already believe, or what was forced onto them as children.

[@TruthBeTold7]

Thanks Dr. Licona. I listened to this whole playlist and learned a lot. I also took notes. You didn't mention these books, but I recommend "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels," by Blomberg; and "The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel," by Blomberg.

[@cvanhaelst4189]

This explanation makes one wonder if any of the authors were inspired by God. Seems like they all just copied or thought plagiarized one another. Are the names given to the gospels in the Bible actually written by the people whose names appear as the authors. Were they actually written by them ?

[@Abraham-bs6bo]

"Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.” (John 8:51)

[@reshmaakthar3754]

Really, how many practicing Christians died today

[@Abraham-bs6bo]

@@reshmaakthar3754 That's not death. A carnal mind only sees carnal things. Jesus is referring to the soul eternal life.

[@syedmajidahmed8292]

Doesn't make sense

[@nargesalove228]

How do you know the Bible is true?

[@jamesrosano9439]

@@Abraham-bs6bo I’m here to save you from the very thing I condemned you to begin with …. Jesus Christ some 2000 years ago all rights reserved

[@cherokeegypsy2617]

Thank you, Mike! ✝️

[@rolandovelasquez135]

God bless you Mike. Very clear. Very concise. Yes The "over and over and over and over ..." part is so good. Repetition, in mnemonics, the most effective and powerful aid to memory.

[@WayneVA1]

Dr. Mike Licona, that was awesome. You touched on several points that I have noticed from the Gospels & the Epistles over the years in light of the errors of Form Criticism (the Creative Church Community) of the 20th & 21st Centuries. Timeline 26:10 Itinerant preacher, Rabbi Jesus & repetition, over & over & over & over … fixing the experiences into their memories. Also, the frequent repetition of eyewitnesses' reports to neighbors & during church testimonies times. Timeline 28:35 Some of Jesus’ disciples, Matthew & John, took notes while they were following Jesus. The “Q” sources. Timeline 29:05 Adjusting the parables & teachings for the Gentile audiences. I would only add one other point of consideration. In John 14:26 Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would bring to their recall everything that Jesus said & did. Mike, that was very clever. May the Lord richly bless you in your Gospel ministry. Jesus of Nazareth is the focus. 📖✝😇🎓⚔⚖👑

[@tommytomtom320]

The Bible is Very Badly Written. We Know from History and Across the World that People Cannot Even Agree what it Says or Means. For about a Millennium People Interpreted it Literally and Concluded it Supported Slavery and after that Decided there was a Different Interpretation and it Didn’t Really. Any God Worth Their Name Would Have the Power to Write a Book that Everyone Could Understand. Any God With Any Sense Would Realize that Human Beings Were of Finite Mental Capacity and if They Really Did Want to Write a Message for all Mankind Would Write a Book that Everyone Would Recognize as the Word of God and Understand. It Makes No Sense at all for God to Write a Book Which in Practice has the Net Effect of Confusing Everybody About Something as Basic as Whether “SLAVERY” is OK. If The Bible is Intended as Moral Guidance it is Demonstrably and Indisputably Badly Written and So Not Plausible as the Word of Any God Worthy the Title. The Bible is What it Appears to Be. It’s an Eclectic Collection of Writings and Stories Mixing Historical Fact with Supernatural Fiction Written Over a Thousand Years Ago by People Who Weren’t Even the Most Enlightened People of Their Time and By Modern Standards were Spectacularly Ignorant. Sorry If You Can't Understand This it's Not My Problem... “If You Think You Know Everything, You’ll Never Learn Anything,”

[@DUDEBroHey]

It would be ironically funny if you guys convinced some Christians that the Bible was pro slavery, they agreed with you, were still Christian, and advocated for slavery based on the Bible. I believe in God, am Christian, and don't believe the Bible supports slavery. It's just funny that you don't understand the conclusions of your beliefs actually means. Good thing William Wilberforce didn't believe this nonsense you're spreading.

[@tommytomtom320]

@@DUDEBroHey Why Do You Not Understand or Deny The Facts That Religion Was Created To Be Used For Slavery... Over 10,000 Years of Evidence Shows That it Was Used as Mind-Control on it's People to Decreed Slavery... Even Today It's Used to Control People for it's Own Agenda's. It's Called Blind Obedience... Meaning. Unquestioning Obedience, Even When You're Told to do Something You Know is Wrong. (Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, Be Obedient to Your Human Masters with Fear and Trembling, in Sincerity of Heart, as to Christ” Which is Paul Instructing Slaves to Obey Their Master. Similar Statements Regarding Obedient Slaves can be Found in Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10.) In the Psychology of Human Behavior, Denialism is a Person's Choice to Deny Reality as a Way to Avoid a Psychologically Uncomfortable Truth. Denialism is an Essentially Irrational Action that Withholds the Validation of a Historical Experience or Event, when a Person Refuses to Accept an Empirically Verifiable Reality... The Term Historical Method Refers to The Collection of Techniques and Guidelines That Historians Use to Research and Write Histories of The Past... The Bible Fails To This Process... What are the Steps in the Historical Process? Step 1: Developing a Paperwork Management System. ... Step 2: Selecting a Topic. ... Step 3: Background Reading for Historical Context. ... Step 4: Narrowing Your Topic. ... Step 5: Gathering and Recording Information. ... Step 6: Analyzing and Interpreting Sources and the Topic's Significance in History. ... Step 7: Developing a Thesis. Step 8: Pear Reviews. Historical Research Methods Enable Institutions to Collect FACTS, Chronological Data, and Other Information Relevant to Their Studies... The Bible Fails To Do This... The More Real Research Done on the Bible, the More it Fails the Historical Information Process... Using The Bible to Prove The Bible is Not Historical Research or Proof in Any Way... You Are Perfect Evidence of Biblical Mind-Control... Sorry if You Can't Understand This... It's Not My Problem...

[@tommytomtom320]

@@DUDEBroHey In the Modern era, Christianity and Slavery are Seen as Oxymoronic. But for much of Christian history, many saw no conflict between keeping the faith and keeping or trading Slaves. From the first century until the Civil War, the Bible itself was often used to Justify Slavery. Sorry if you can't understand this it's not my problem...

[@DUDEBroHey]

@@tommytomtom320 I bet you support the income tax, aren't opposed to the national debt, I bet you support property taxes too. Heck did you support COVID lockdowns and vaccine mandates? We're nothing but tax livestock. It's pretty damn hard to not modern man as a slave. I don't know if you're an American but if I argue a state should secede from the union people start screeching. God forbid a slave gets a bit more freedom. He'll still be tax livestock anywhere he goes. I hope your side actually supports freedom over slavery one day.

[@tommytomtom320]

@@DUDEBroHey Being Educated often Means Having a Critical Mindset. Simply Put, You Don’t Take Things For Granted and You Don’t Believe Stuff Just Because an Authority Figure or Book Says So. That Transfers to the Bible and Gods as Well: “It Says So in the Bible” Isn’t Automatically True for Someone with a Critical Mindset, and Things are not Necessarily Believable Just Because a Pastor Says It. The problem is that in Particular Islam and Christianity are Authoritative Religions. In Christianity, the Only Path to Heaven is to Accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and in Islam, You Submit to Allah as Muhammad Revealed Through the Qur’an - The Word “Islam” Even Means “Submission”. The Natural Response From the Educated Critical Mind is, of Course, “Why?” And “Because Muhammad/Jesus/God/the Bible/the Qur’an Says So” Is Not a Valid Answer. Because We Had the Luxury of an Education That Afford us The Skills to Think Critically, Rationally, and Reasonably. This, in Turn, Allowed us to Objectively Read the Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Vedas, and Other Scriptures and Holy Books. When that Happens We Often Reject the Claim That the Characters Found Within Being Educated Often Means Having a Critical Mindset. Simply Put, You Don’t Take Things for Granted and You Don’t Believe Stuff Just Because an Authority Figure or Book Says So. Because We had the Luxury of an Education that Afford us the Skills to Think Critically, Rationally, and Reasonably. This, in Turn, Allowed us to Objectively Read the Bible, Koran, Dhammapada, Vedas, and Other Scriptures and Holy Books. When that Happens We Often Reject the Claim that the Characters Found Within Exist in Reality. If So Many Highly Educated People Don’t Believe in God… Maybe It Is Because They Know Something You Don’t, It’s Because, Due to Their High Intelligence and Education, They Have Realized That All Gods Are Imaginary. Educated People Tend to Believe in Things That Can Be Proved and For Which There is Evidence. I don’t Believe in God for the Same Reason You Don’t Believe in Vampires, Faeries, Werewolves, Pegasus, Mermaids, and Numerous other Supernatural Beings from Myth, Folklore, and Fantasy. You Make an Exception for One Preferred Flavor of Myth; I don’t. I believe in the Power of Loving Kindness, Illuminated by Self-Reliance and Mindfulness. I Neither Need, Nor Desire, a Belief in Deities to Walk That Path. To Exist in Reality. “No amount of Evidence will Ever Persuade an Ignorant Person.” “If You Think You Know Everything, You’ll Never Learn Anything,”

[@Yeoman1346]

Thank you Dr. Licona for your lectures on line. It really has blessed me. I want to save up and buy your book on the differences in the gospels. I learned quite a bit from the late Dr. Walter Martin. I’m sure before your time. You have been blessing me through your teaching, especially through lectures. I listen to you and I am going through a book called Tactics written by my wife’s friend. These resources better equip me to deal with gospel objections. As a retired man who now has a lot of time I am blessed by you and Greg’s book. Thank you again. Praying for you. Thomas Hanscom

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Thanks much, Thomas! I'm so glad to learn my videos have been a blessing to you.

[@alessandroroque7535]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial Good night Mr. Licona! My name is Alessandro and i'm speaking as a resident of the Brazilian nation that so far has seen a naturalist Jesus being presented for decades by history professors at universities! one is even dishonoring our faith publicly on his youtube channel! Please if you can help in any way! With debate even with a translator! Simple people cannot defend their faith in my country! Thanks!

[@alessandroroque7535]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial We Brazilians are unable to give good answers to children and young people .. we are simple people and we do not know what to do! You'are friend of William Lane Craig right?Well, anyone who can do something would help a lot... God bless you! He is a historian called ANDRÉ CHEVITARESE; he teaches in a renowned university in Brazil - Federal University of Rio de Janeiro - (UFRJ) This is his channel: kzbin.info/door/EI8IE2v5Ykxci5ChME1p6g

[@alessandroroque7535]

He agreed to have a debate with Craig; I sent the suggestion in a comment and he said "SURELY" It could even be online as long as it was advertised as an event. The comment: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bpeXd6t6hNdqpac&lc=UgyAmev-U6oP8ulOuxt4AaABAg.9QNIbDEdJdd9QNg89WP-VO

[@jamesrosano9439]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial you should know better than anyone jeuss never died and that Christian’s don’t follow jeuss the stories were all invented like the trinity Christian’s will never be followers of Christ

[@terancejude]

Thank you mike....awesome.... god bless you...

[@ChrisAtKaffirsCorner]

....and over. Great presentation

[@CSuiteLeague]

epic

[@MutsPub]

Thank you.

[@ABBAnMJ]

Excellent! Thank you so much!😁❤️

[@mrbradley3309]

The goat!!

[@sethsuleiman4419]

A historical data can be reliable if (1) the transmission of the data is reliable; ie. its chain and trustworthiness of narrators is known and (2) God who said it.

[@jj691]

That’s exactly the reason no non Islamic scholar or historian takes the Quran seriously. The Quran is 4th or 5th hand testimony at best. Allah -> Gabriel -> Mohammad -> Uthman Think of everything that wasn’t said and just added

[@ABBAnMJ]

Thank you!

[@matheussalespinheiro1428]

Can i be a christian and accept that the bible have errors or sayings that are no from jesus : ?

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Biblical inerrancy is not an essential doctrine. Thousands become followers of Jesus upon hearing the apostles preach before any of the New Testament literature had been penned.

[@matheussalespinheiro1428]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial Thanks a lot Mike

[@neild9426]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial so is Jesus Yahweh or is the father Yahweh..

[@neild9426]

@@reginaldking9906 Matthew 28:19-20 doesn’t mean that Jesus is Yahweh or explains the trinity...the father..the son..and the holy sprit a three persons but one..the father is not the son..and the son is not the father..and the holy sprit is not the father or the son..so who is Yahweh??

[@christislord4608]

@@neild9426 Yahweh is God. Yahweh or YHWH simply literally translated means "I am that I am", which can mean something like "I exist" or "I am the existence" or "I am eternal" or something along those lines. And you got that the Trinity the wrong way around. The Bible does not explain the Trinity. The Trinity explains the 3 persons you come across when reading the Bible who are identified as God.

[@richardpaulhall]

How can you say Scripture is reliable? Where are theoriginaldocuments? The supporting evidence?

[@DDDSSDDDSSDDDSS]

Original gospels were not written in Greek. So who knows what has changed.

[@johnmacdonald2112]

Dan Brown's historical fiction novels describe setting elements in painstaking detail too. I don't think pursuing this line of argument is going to result in the fruit you think it will.

[@LourensBrink]

This comparison isn't entirely fair. In modern times we do find novels which contains a lot of detail, but this kind of writing wasn't the norm when it came to ancient myths. That is one of the major differences when comparing modern authors and novels to say the Gospels. Within the context of the ancient world the Gospels have a lot of painstaking detail which wasn't the norm if it was something like an ancient myth or novel.

[@johnmacdonald2112]

@@LourensBrink It is widely accepted by Religious Studies scholars teaching at accredited secular universities that the gospels are basically historical fiction built up around some minimal historical facts like Jesus' crucifixion and relationship with John the Baptist - the bulk of the material is fiction. John's water to wine miracle, for instance, is mimesis of Elijah in 1 Kings 17:8-24 LXX.

[@Thomas-lu8mp]

​@@johnmacdonald2112evidence?

[@edgarmorales4476]

Just as Jesus discarded the teachings of Judaism, Jesus would also discard the teachings in the Bible. Too much of the Bible has been distorted, misunderstood and incorrectly reported; why put new wine into old wineskins.

[@jesusdebunked9403]

the gospels are mythology. jesus is horus

[@colemanadamson5943]

Those who claim the gospels are reliable but the King James Bible is not perfect are liars and fools.

[@Neutral151]

Religion began when the first conman met the first fool...

[@redpillsatori3020]

TL;DR - Ex post facto justifications for a belief in Iron Age fairy tales that have been passed down (i.e. forced onto children) over many generations.

[@Chaturanger]

Absolutely not reliable...1st : not signed and we don't know who wrote them.

[@j2mfp78]

So they wrote themselves?

[@christislord4608]

@@j2mfp78 The greatest miracle of all! The Gospels wrote themselves!

[@alexanderfloyd5099]

Whaaaa? Like spontaneous writing?

[@celestialknight2339]

*The Evolution of the Gospels in Making Jesus God:* *Gospel of Mark (the earliest Gospel, written ~65AD):* Jesus is declared God’s son during his adult ministry after being baptized, makes lots of human errors, is portrayed as a servant and Jewish rabbi who focuses on glorifying God & the good news of God’s Kingdom, is viewed by many as a prophet, and dies a bleak and depressing death, while crying out at God who forsook him at his last breath. *Gospel of Matthew & Luke (written later ~85-90AD):* Jesus is declared God’s son as early as birth, to a virgin mother no less, makes far fewer mistakes and appears more powerful, acts as a confident preacher & miracle-worker who is now called “lord” by his followers instead of rabbi, focuses less on preaching about his God, and dies a humble and honorable death, praying to God for his enemies to be forgiven & his soul to be graciously taken. *Gospel of John (the latest Gospel, written ~100AD):* Jesus is declared to be the PRE-EXISTENT divine son of God-rather than as an adult or child-who DESCENDED from heaven and incarnated as a sacrificial savior in the flesh; he makes no unintentional errors but is in full control of his mighty & declarative speech and actions, while being portrayed as the divine Word of God having incarnated on earth as the god-man, preaching virtually NOTHING any longer about God’s coming Kingdom, but almost exclusively about HIMSELF and his own divine status & glory, where he uses many explosive “I Am” declarations for himself that were never mentioned in any of the previous gospels, and considers himself on par with God, ultimately dying a heroic and victorious death as he had originally planned since the beginning of the world, where he REFUSES to pray to God to save him, as he had done in the previous three gospels. Now I know that conservative Christians like yourselves don’t usually accept Darwin’s theory of evolution, but this is undoubtedly a form of evolution within the Bible that you certainly cannot deny if you are being even slightly honest & sincere with yourselves... But God Almighty-YHWH, the one true God of Abraham whom Jesus Christ himself happily served & worshiped-has brought down to you clarification and guidance through the Qur’an, and reminds you of the original message of Christ and all the other prophets before him came to deliver, which is to serve God alone-your Lord and their Lord-and to do good to your fellow humanity, before the Day of Judgement soon arrives. And God Almighty directly declares to you all: *_”O people of the Scripture! Do not go too far in your theology, and do not say things about God except the truth! The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, is only God’s messenger, as well as His Word which He cast into Mary, and a spirit from Him! So believe in God and His messengers, and do not speak of a trinity! Stop it-it is for your own good! God is one sole divinity, who is far above having a son! He owns everything in the heavens and everything on earth! And God is fully able to manage it all on His own!”_* _(Al-Qur’an [The Recitation])_

[@victormargulius632]

Have you read the Gospels though? It is very clear each of the 4 gospels proclaim Jesus is God: *Mark* 14:60-64 *(earliest gospel)* 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the *Son* of the Blessed One?” 62 *“I am”,* said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” (Why would the high priest condemn Jesus to death for blasphemy if he didn’t claim to be God?) *Matthew* *26:62-66* 62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” 64 *“You have said so,”* Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?” *Luke* 22:66-71 66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” 70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, *“You say that I am.”* 71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.” *John* 18:19-24 (John’s Gospel is unique in that it isn’t one of the synoptic gospels so he talks about different information. When talking about the arrest of Jesus and the subsequent trials, he introduces new information about how Jesus was first taken to Annas the high priest, before then being taken to Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin right after like the other 3 gospels do. ) 19 Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20 “I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21 Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.” 22 When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded. 23 “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the *truth*, why did you strike me?” 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. (^referring to the Sanhedrin trial mentioned in the other 3 gospels) Jesus clearly says he has maintained the truth in preaching to the Jews. We also see clearly in the gospel of Mark that Jesus affirms Caiaphas’ question if He was the Son of God. Continuing, Though John doesn’t explicitly include the same content as the synoptic gospels for the Sanhedrin trial, he does make it very clear about Jesus’ divinity here: *John* 10:22-30 22 Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 *I* *and* *the* *Father* *are* *one*.”* ^^Jesus cannot make it any clearer here- He claims to be God himself.

[@edwardlongfellow5819]

A reading of the Gospels will clearly show that they are not historically correct or reliable should a person care to read them.

[@ctt59]

So the gospels are not reliable?

[@edwardlongfellow5819]

@@ctt59 I would answer was Jesus the King of the Jews? If so the Romans were entitled to execute him!

[@edwardlongfellow5819]

@@ctt59 If Jesus wanted to start a revolution then the Gospels are reliable. If Jesus operated as a quack doctor then it is reliable.

[@fatstrategist]

How so?

[@nemochuggles]

This is untrue. If you read them yourself, you would see they’re reflective of realistic eyewitness accounts. Making a blanket statement like that with no evidence or substance is ignorant.