• Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Are the four gospels reliable eye-witness accounts?


  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Actually much of the Book of Enoch was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Almost no one doubts it is older than the book of Jude and that Jude quoted from it, believing it to be scripture, or at the very least, having a deep regard for it. So much so that he includes it in his letter as an exhortation.

But this still does not address the synoptic problem. Matthew and Luke are not eye-witness accounts, but were constructed accounts taken from other written sources, Mark being one of those sources, Q being another. Papias also says that Mark is not an eye-witness account, but was written by Mark who got his account from Peter. However, there are problems with that theory as well. The gospel seems to use several of the stories as it would symbolism. For example, the story of John the Baptist's beheading (as a symbol of Jesus own arrest and crucifixion) and the story that portrays Jesus needing to try more than once to heal a blind man (as a symbol of his disciples inability to see though he tries and tries).

The gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Peter are both testaments to the existence of "other" source material at or near the time of the writing of the gospels we have preserved today.

Jude was not quoting anything from Enoch. No one knows really when the fragments of Enoch were written. They could be from 2nd century b.c. to 1st century A.D. And the fragments found at the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain the verses in Jude. Thus Jude is not supporting Enoch as Scripture. And he is not giving it a deep regard. As I said, Jude is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

There is no synoptic problem unless one wants to doubt the inspiration of Scripture. There is no need for Q, unless one wants to doubt the inspiration of Scripture.

So, Pharmboy, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God and inspired by His Holy Spirit? Do you believe the Holy Spirit gave the writers what they wrote?

Stranger
 
Last edited:

Pharmboy

Member
Jun 19, 2010
46
6
8
53
Lubbock, Tx
Jude was not quoting anything from Enoch. No one knows really when the fragments of Enoch were written. They could be from 2nd century b.c. to 1st century A.D. And the fragments found at the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain the verses in Jude. Thus Jude is not supporting Enoch as Scripture. And he is not giving it a deep regard. As I said, Jude is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

There is no synoptic problem unless one wants to doubt the inspiration of Scripture. There is no need for Q, unless one wants to doubt the inspiration of Scripture.

So, Pharmboy, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God and inspired by His Holy Spirit? Do you believe the Holy Spirit gave the writers what they wrote?

Stranger


So, Matthew and Luke copying Mark is spirit inspired, but if they used other sources it's not spirit inspired? Therefore they must not have used other sources? This is your ONLY logic for the non-existence of Q, so far. Even though Matthew and Luke have already shown they copied one text, they couldn't have possibly copied another. You're kindof painting yourself into a corner here arent you? Anything you can't answer is "spirit inspired" until you can answer it. Sounds a little self-serving to me. You probably believe the earth is six thousand years old too... How about the sea of glass above the dome in the sky? And a talking snake with legs? Just so you dont ruin your world-view that the Bible is God. Literally you are creating a Quadinity.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, Matthew and Luke copying Mark is spirit inspired, but if they used other sources it's not spirit inspired? Therefore they must not have used other sources? This is your ONLY logic for the non-existence of Q, so far. Even though Matthew and Luke have already shown they copied one text, they couldn't have possibly copied another. You're kindof painting yourself into a corner here arent you? Anything you can't answer is "spirit inspired" until you can answer it. Sounds a little self-serving to me. You probably believe the earth is six thousand years old too... How about the sea of glass above the dome in the sky? And a talking snake with legs? Just so you dont ruin your world-view that the Bible is God. Literally you are creating a Quadinity.

I didn't say Matthew and Luke copied Mark. There is no 'logic' for Q except your unbelief. As I said before, no document, no writers or redactors, just your belief.

Oh, you don't like the inspiration of God upon Scripture. It was evident.

No, Pharmboy, the Bible is not God. But it was written by God. And it doesn't need your 'logic' or 'synoptics' or 'bs'. God is capable of writing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John without your need for made up documents.

I believe the Bible. And you don't.

Stranger
 

Pharmboy

Member
Jun 19, 2010
46
6
8
53
Lubbock, Tx
I didn't say Matthew and Luke copied Mark. There is no 'logic' for Q except your unbelief. As I said before, no document, no writers or redactors, just your belief.

Oh, you don't like the inspiration of God upon Scripture. It was evident.

No, Pharmboy, the Bible is not God. But it was written by God. And it doesn't need your 'logic' or 'synoptics' or 'bs'. God is capable of writing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John without your need for made up documents.

I believe the Bible. And you don't.

Stranger


If inspiration were evident, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Matthew and Luke copied verbatim from Mark. That's not inspiration.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If inspiration were evident, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Matthew and Luke copied verbatim from Mark. That's not inspiration.

Inspiration is declared and evident to the believer. And it is evident to those who are of God. Thus we are having this discussion.

Who says Matthew and Luke copied form Mark? You? Matthew and Mark wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They didn't need any other document to copy.

Stranger
 

Prizm

New Member
Nov 1, 2008
17
1
3
43
First you say we never had a book of Enoch:
What do you mean lost until recently? We have never had it.

Then you say Jude was written long before the book of Enoch:
Jude was written long before your copy of Enoch.

You seem to make things up as you go along. And just so you avoid dealing with the fact that an apocryphal book is quoted in the New Testament, you pull this desperate excuse that Jude was "inspired by the Holy Spirit" to quote the words that just happen to be practically verbatim from the Book of Enoch.

According to what source do you get the information that Enoch was written long after Jude? Because the consensus appears to be that it was written before Christ.

If the Holy Spirit inspired Jude to write the words of Enoch, why didn't the Holy Spirit also cause the Book of Enoch to be included in the Bible, if indeed it was so inspired?
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
First you say we never had a book of Enoch:


Then you say Jude was written long before the book of Enoch:


You seem to make things up as you go along. And just so you avoid dealing with the fact that an apocryphal book is quoted in the New Testament, you pull this desperate excuse that Jude was "inspired by the Holy Spirit" to quote the words that just happen to be practically verbatim from the Book of Enoch.

According to what source do you get the information that Enoch was written long after Jude? Because the consensus appears to be that it was written before Christ.

If the Holy Spirit inspired Jude to write the words of Enoch, why didn't the Holy Spirit also cause the Book of Enoch to be included in the Bible, if indeed it was so inspired?

The fragments of the book of Enoch found in the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain the verses of Jude in question. They are found in the copy of the book of Jude which is dated much later than the book of Jude.

Again, there is nothing to indicate Jude is quoting from a book. He is simply saying what Jude prophesied. If anyone quoted, it was the writer or writers of the copy of the book of Enoch that quoted Jude.

The Holy Spirit inspired Enoch to prophesy of the Second Coming of Christ. The Holy Spirit through Jude is saying what He gave to Enoch to prophecy. The book of Enoch is not in the Bible because it is not inspired by God.

Check the date of the book of Jude. Check the date of the copy of the book of Enoch where the verses in question are found.

Stranger
 

verzanumi24

Advanced Member
Aug 17, 2007
775
65
28
62
New Yonk City
My wife took me to see The Case for Christ. As a movie, it was engaging and enjoyable. But as far as making a case for the reliability of the gospels, it was horrible. Mainly, because it didn't really address the issue at hand. Are the gospels really eye-witness accounts? Are they reliable in terms of historical content?

The movie assumes they are eye-witness accounts and calls them that. But are they? The greatest evidence against this view, in my opinion, is the synoptic problem. And a big problem it is. Forget the gospel of John for a moment, and focus on the three synoptics --Matthew, Mark and Luke. Luke says his gospel is not an eye-witness account, but that he compiled his account from others (whom he claims are eye-witnesses). So where did he get his information and what about Matthew and Mark?

Scholars in New Testament studies have pointed out that Matthew, Mark and Luke share information. They do not just appear similar, the passages in question are so similar that it is accurate to say they were copied (almost verbatim), one from another. So who copied who?

Scholars further point out that if you lay the three accounts side by side and compare the texts, a pattern emerges. Mark was written in poor Greek (even though it is claimed that it was written first in Hebrew, though no copies of that exist and where Mark does borrow from sources they are always Greek sources, such as the Septuagint and not Hebrew sources). It appears, to scholars, that Matthew and Luke, used Mark as a source because where they agree with Mark (almost verbatim), they also seem to have corrected his poor Greek, each in the writers own unique way.

This would make Mark the first gospel. But it also discounts Luke and Matthew from being eye-witness accounts. Almost 90% of Mark can be found in Matthew's gospel, and almost 50% in Luke's. Matthew and Luke also appear to have borrowed from another (not Mark) similar source, because Material found in the two gospels, that is not found in Mark, is, again, almost verbatim. This source is what they call Q. And where Matthew and Luke disagree, on original content, they completely disagree. For example, the birth narratives could not be more different.

So that pretty much leaves us with Mark and John. Could Mark and John be eye-witness accounts? Because Matthew and Luke are most certainly not. Neither do they agree, except when they agree with Mark or Q. They even re-arrange the material in order to make the work appealing to a specific group of people. Matthew to Jews, Luke to educated Romans. So neither can they be reliable historically, leaving us with only two gospels.

On what basis one would say they were not eye witnesses? If I wrote about something that I saw, and after I'm dead and buried, generations after that someone found what I wrote, and say what I wrote is not true, would that person be credible? How can someone who was never around when it was written decide in their mind the truth on something simply by saying it's not true?
 

Pharmboy

Member
Jun 19, 2010
46
6
8
53
Lubbock, Tx
verzanumi, if they copied from other wiritten sources then they cannot be eye witnesses. If I saw an accident and I am asked to recount it on paper, would they accept my account if it was mostly copied (verbatim) from someone else's account? Why would I copy from another eye witness if I saw it myself? Copying that much material testifies to the fact that the account is NOT an eye witness account. The gospel never claims to be written by the person to whom it is attributed. It also never claims to be an eye witness account.