3 ms·

>>> None of them are historical work as different events are taking different orderings (or are missing from the other gospels). Watch out for using that stand

>>> None of them are historical work as different events are taking different orderings (or are missing from the other gospels). Watch out for using that standard. You have to throw out Pompeii and Josephus. Both replay events and move them around in time to make a point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVR0jXxJDn0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVR0jXxJDn0

dragontamer 2y ago
I'm a Catholic so trust me, I believe the events happened. But I'm also somewhat studied in history. The gospels are the best historical records available for Jesus but they have their flaws (and that's why all four gospels are used, to help us figure out the truth between the writings). It's actually somewhat uncomfortable to discuss the differences of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John with regards to important events like the first Easter. Did Peter come to the tomb first? Or did the women? When exactly did the angel appear to declare that Jesus is risen? In the tomb? Outside the tomb? Etc. etc. Who rolled back the stone? The core, historical truth, is muddy. The four gospels have slightly different stories even if the important events are mostly there (Peter checking the tomb. The women checking the tomb. The appearance of the angel and the declaration that Jesus is risen) Even Mark itself isn't a single work either. The earliest versions of Mark don't have the events of Easter detailed like the later versions of Mark. (IE longer Mark 16 vs Shorter Mark 16 issue). And Mark is the earliest written gospel, the one we should defacto trust the most. That Jesus arose from the tomb is in no doubt for any of these gospels. But when we dig into the specific order of events, we realize it's a story and reconstruction of the history with different nuances. And alas, that is the nature of the Gospel Truth. Anyone who studies the Bible must contend with this and accept it.
- tiahura 2y ago
  Historical doesn’t mean true.
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The historicity of Jesus is more or less accepted by mainstream historians. Not that he necessarily died, was resurrected after three days, and will return to judge the quick and the dead and all that. But that there was a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua or Jesus who came from Nazareth, was baptized, preached in the Holy Land, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
  - dragontamer 2y ago
    Well, I was mostly breaking the case for Biblical Literalism. Catholics believes the Bible to be a collection of stories, and that God wants us to know these stories. Certain elements of the Bible are taken as truth, but so are long running traditions (such as the Assumption of Mary, an event that is NOT in the Bible). Indeed: Catholics treat the Bible as just one of many traditions and even as other traditions beyond the Bible in terms of truth. IE: Biblical Literalism (trying to take the Bible as LITERALLY True or historical) is a mistake. And ignoring other traditions (ex: assumption of Mary) is also a big mistake. Still, the myth of Biblical Literalism exists today. Because well... Catholicism is not the only interpretation and some other Christians have a different belief system.
- chungy 2y ago
  > The gospels are the best historical records available for Jesus but they have their flaws The Bible is written by men, specifically prophets and apostles. As such, there is errancy that creeps into the work. There is also errancy introduced in copying and translation.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    > specifically prophets and apostles Well, not all of it (depending on your definitions of course). The gospels, for example, have no known authorship. Several of the epistles are believed to be pseudepigrapha. A problem to contend with in bible authorship is the name on the book/epistle isn't always going to be the actual person that penned that book/epistle. A great example of this is Isaiah, which is believed to have at least 2 to 3 authors (with most scholars, afaik, believing it's probably 3). This wasn't really a nefarious action, because the people that wrote the bible didn't believe they were writing infallible works of religious text. Much like the telling of tall tales, it was simply acceptable to write (or relay through spoken tradition) fables of favorite historical characters. So what if Moses didn't exist, it's pretty cool to use him as a figure to unify the Canaanite tribes. (Fun fact, biblical scholars/historians believe that the ancestors of the Jews were Canaanite and that the story of moses was mostly there to unify them). The bible is a mishmash of historic documents mostly solidified in ~400CE.
- isaacfrond 2y ago
  > the best historical records (...) to help us figure out the truth (...) > When exactly did the angel appear to declare that Jesus is risen? In the tomb? Outside the tomb? Etc. etc. Right. An angel appeared. You going to need a whole lot better evidence to convince me of that, than a few ancient text that may or may not agree with each other.

dragontamer 2y ago

I'm a Catholic so trust me, I believe the events happened. But I'm also somewhat studied in history. The gospels are the best historical records available for Jesus but they have their flaws (and that's why all four gospels are used, to help us figure out the truth between the writings). It's actually somewhat uncomfortable to discuss the differences of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John with regards to important events like the first Easter. Did Peter come to the tomb first? Or did the women? When exactly did the angel appear to declare that Jesus is risen? In the tomb? Outside the tomb? Etc. etc. Who rolled back the stone? The core, historical truth, is muddy. The four gospels have slightly different stories even if the important events are mostly there (Peter checking the tomb. The women checking the tomb. The appearance of the angel and the declaration that Jesus is risen) Even Mark itself isn't a single work either. The earliest versions of Mark don't have the events of Easter detailed like the later versions of Mark. (IE longer Mark 16 vs Shorter Mark 16 issue). And Mark is the earliest written gospel, the one we should defacto trust the most. That Jesus arose from the tomb is in no doubt for any of these gospels. But when we dig into the specific order of events, we realize it's a story and reconstruction of the history with different nuances. And alas, that is the nature of the Gospel Truth. Anyone who studies the Bible must contend with this and accept it.

tiahura 2y ago
Historical doesn’t mean true.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The historicity of Jesus is more or less accepted by mainstream historians. Not that he necessarily died, was resurrected after three days, and will return to judge the quick and the dead and all that. But that there was a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua or Jesus who came from Nazareth, was baptized, preached in the Holy Land, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
- dragontamer 2y ago
  Well, I was mostly breaking the case for Biblical Literalism. Catholics believes the Bible to be a collection of stories, and that God wants us to know these stories. Certain elements of the Bible are taken as truth, but so are long running traditions (such as the Assumption of Mary, an event that is NOT in the Bible). Indeed: Catholics treat the Bible as just one of many traditions and even as other traditions beyond the Bible in terms of truth. IE: Biblical Literalism (trying to take the Bible as LITERALLY True or historical) is a mistake. And ignoring other traditions (ex: assumption of Mary) is also a big mistake. Still, the myth of Biblical Literalism exists today. Because well... Catholicism is not the only interpretation and some other Christians have a different belief system.
chungy 2y ago
> The gospels are the best historical records available for Jesus but they have their flaws The Bible is written by men, specifically prophets and apostles. As such, there is errancy that creeps into the work. There is also errancy introduced in copying and translation.
- cogman10 2y ago
  > specifically prophets and apostles Well, not all of it (depending on your definitions of course). The gospels, for example, have no known authorship. Several of the epistles are believed to be pseudepigrapha. A problem to contend with in bible authorship is the name on the book/epistle isn't always going to be the actual person that penned that book/epistle. A great example of this is Isaiah, which is believed to have at least 2 to 3 authors (with most scholars, afaik, believing it's probably 3). This wasn't really a nefarious action, because the people that wrote the bible didn't believe they were writing infallible works of religious text. Much like the telling of tall tales, it was simply acceptable to write (or relay through spoken tradition) fables of favorite historical characters. So what if Moses didn't exist, it's pretty cool to use him as a figure to unify the Canaanite tribes. (Fun fact, biblical scholars/historians believe that the ancestors of the Jews were Canaanite and that the story of moses was mostly there to unify them). The bible is a mishmash of historic documents mostly solidified in ~400CE.
isaacfrond 2y ago
> the best historical records (...) to help us figure out the truth (...) > When exactly did the angel appear to declare that Jesus is risen? In the tomb? Outside the tomb? Etc. etc. Right. An angel appeared. You going to need a whole lot better evidence to convince me of that, than a few ancient text that may or may not agree with each other.