Were the Gospel Writers Biased?
Summary
TLDRIn this discourse, the reliability of the gospels is examined through their early authorship, corroboration, consistency over time, and the absence of bias. The speaker explores the motivations behind lying, identifying financial gain, lust, and the pursuit of power as the primary reasons. They argue that the authors of the gospels, having nothing to gain in these areas, were not biased. The speaker also addresses the skepticism around trusting Christian sources, using an analogy to demonstrate the absurdity of dismissing eyewitness accounts due to belief. Concluding that the gospels meet all criteria for reliability, the speaker shares their conversion to Christianity based on the robust evidence presented.
Takeaways
- 🕵️♂️ The reliability of the gospels is examined based on four criteria: early authorship, corroboration, consistency over time, and absence of bias.
- ✍️ The authors of the gospels wrote their accounts early enough for their testimonies to be considered credible.
- 🔗 The gospels are corroborated by other historical documents and writings of the time.
- 🔄 The content of the gospels has remained consistent over time, indicating honesty and accuracy.
- 🤔 The concept of bias is discussed, with a focus on whether the authors had motives such as financial gain, sexual or relational reasons, or the pursuit of power.
- 💰 The idea that the authors of the gospels could have been motivated by financial gain is deemed unlikely.
- ❤️ The possibility of the authors being driven by sexual or relational desires is also considered an improbable motive for their writings.
- ⚖️ The pursuit of power is presented as a potential bias, but the speaker argues that it is unreasonable to believe the authors would have sacrificed their positions for such a motive.
- 🗣️ The speaker emphasizes the importance of considering the martyrdom of the gospel authors as evidence of their commitment to the truth of their accounts.
- 👀 The speaker refutes the notion that non-Christian sources are more reliable, using the analogy of a bank robbery witness to illustrate that belief does not invalidate eyewitness testimony.
Q & A
What are the three main factors that can cause someone to lie according to the speaker?
-The speaker identifies three main factors that can cause someone to lie: financial gain, sexual or relational lust, and the pursuit of power, respect, authority, position, or influence.
How does the speaker suggest evaluating the reliability of the Gospels?
-The speaker suggests evaluating the reliability of the Gospels by considering if they were written early enough, if they have been corroborated, if they have remained unchanged over time, and if the authors show any bias that would motivate them to lie.
What is the speaker's stance on the idea that the Gospels are not reliable because they were written by Christians?
-The speaker argues against the notion that the Gospels are not reliable because they were written by Christians, using the analogy of a bank robbery witness who becomes a believer in the guilt of the robber after witnessing the crime.
Why does the speaker believe that the martyrdom of the Gospel authors supports their reliability?
-The speaker believes that the martyrdom of the Gospel authors supports their reliability because they were willing to die for their claims, indicating that they knew their testimonies were true since they had experienced the events themselves.
What is the speaker's view on the necessity of having a non-Christian source to validate the story of Jesus?
-The speaker rejects the idea that a non-Christian source is necessary to validate the story of Jesus, arguing that a witness's belief in the events they witnessed does not invalidate their testimony.
How does the speaker use the analogy of a bar fight to illustrate the difficulty in determining truth?
-The speaker uses the analogy of a bar fight where two drunk individuals are accusing each other of starting the fight to illustrate how difficult it can be to determine who is telling the truth, and how this scenario can be a learning exercise for new officers in discerning truth-telling.
What does the speaker imply about the motivations of the Gospel authors in terms of financial gain?
-The speaker implies that it is unlikely that the Gospel authors were motivated by financial gain, as they did not receive money from their stories and in fact faced persecution and death.
What is the speaker's opinion on the possibility of the Gospel authors lying for the sake of power?
-The speaker finds it unreasonable to believe that the Gospel authors lied for the sake of power, as their actions, including their martyrdom, suggest they sacrificed positions of authority for their beliefs.
Why does the speaker consider the Gospel of Matthew as a significant account?
-The speaker considers the Gospel of Matthew significant because Matthew was a skeptic before becoming a believer, similar to the bank robbery witness who did not expect the robbery but witnessed it and became convinced of the truth.
What does the speaker mean when he says that the Gospels 'measure up' in terms of reliability?
-When the speaker says the Gospels 'measure up' in terms of reliability, he means that they pass the tests for early authorship, corroboration, consistency over time, and lack of bias that would lead to lying, thus supporting their reliability.
Outlines
🕵️♂️ Assessing Gospel Reliability and Motivations for Deception
The paragraph discusses the examination of the reliability of the gospels based on four criteria: timeliness, corroboration, consistency over time, and the absence of bias. It introduces the concept of bias as a factor that can affect the truthfulness of eyewitness accounts. The speaker uses the analogy of a bar fight to illustrate how difficult it can be to discern the truth when there is a potential for bias. The paragraph then delves into the reasons why people might lie, categorizing them into three main motivations: financial gain, lust (sexual or relational), and the pursuit of power. The speaker argues that if the authors of the gospels were lying, it would be for one of these reasons. The paragraph concludes by questioning whether it's reasonable to believe that the gospel authors were motivated by a desire for power, given their ultimate sacrifices, and suggests that their willingness to die for their beliefs speaks to the reliability of their accounts.
📜 The Credibility of Christian and Non-Christian Testimonies
This paragraph addresses the objection that testimonies about Jesus should come from non-Christian sources to be considered reliable, as Christian authors might be biased. The speaker counters this argument by using a bank robbery analogy, where an unexpected witness provides a credible account of the crime despite being personally acquainted with the perpetrator. The speaker argues that personal belief does not necessarily invalidate the credibility of an eyewitness. The paragraph then draws a parallel between this scenario and the Gospel of Matthew, suggesting that Matthew, who was initially a skeptic, wrote his gospel because of his firsthand experiences with Jesus, not because of a preconceived bias. The speaker concludes by emphasizing that the gospels meet the criteria for reliable eyewitness accounts, and that their authors' sincerity is demonstrated by their willingness to face martyrdom for their beliefs.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Reliable
💡Early Authorship
💡Corroboration
💡Consistency
💡Bias
💡Financial Gain
💡Sexual or Relational Lust
💡Power
💡Martyrdom
💡Non-Christian Source
Highlights
The reliability of the gospels is examined through three criteria: early authorship, corroboration, and consistency over time.
The concept of eyewitness reliability is discussed, focusing on the potential for bias and dishonesty in accounts.
A real-life analogy of a bar fight is used to illustrate the difficulty in discerning truth from biased accounts.
The speaker identifies three primary motivations for lying: financial gain, lust, and the pursuit of power.
The speaker argues that the authors of the gospels did not stand to gain from lying in any of the three identified areas.
The speaker challenges the idea that the gospels are unreliable because they were written by Christians.
The speaker uses the example of a bank robbery witness to argue that a believer's testimony can still be credible.
Matthew, a tax collector and skeptic, is highlighted as an example of an unbiased gospel writer.
The speaker emphasizes the importance of the gospels being written by eyewitnesses who would know if their accounts were true.
The willingness of the gospel authors to die for their beliefs is presented as evidence of the reliability of their accounts.
The speaker refutes the objection that non-Christian sources are necessary for a reliable account of Jesus.
The speaker concludes that the gospels meet all four criteria for evaluating eyewitness reliability.
The speaker's personal conversion to Christianity is attributed to the evidential reliability of the gospels.
The importance of mastering the cumulative case for the reliability of the gospels is emphasized for communication to others.
The speaker asserts that the evidence for the gospels' reliability is robust and worth the time to understand and share.
Transcripts
well we're just about ready to wrap up
an examination of whether the gospels
are reliable we looked at three things
so far right are they written early
enough have they uh going to be
corroborated in some way have they
changed over time uh they've been honest
and accurate over time the last aspect
of eyewitness reliability is a bias if
you find bias if you find that if
something is motivating people to lie
then you shouldn't trust at least you
should be skeptical or suspicious about
what they tell you especially they've
got good gain they can gain something
important by their lie look we have a
bar in our town and every new uh trainee
every new patrol officer is going to get
dispatched to a bar fight if it occurs
at this bar because it's notorious for
bar fights on the weekend and we want to
see if our new guys can actually do the
job so if you're a trainee and you've
got a field training officer and there's
a bar fight at this bar you're going to
get dispatched to have to deal with the
bar fight well why because it's a great
exercise in learning about truth-telling
because when you get there there's going
to be two drunk Fighters and one's going
to say that the other person started it
and he should go to jail and that guy's
gonna say oh that guy started he should
go to jail
and trying to figure out who you should
trust in this and who's motivated to lie
to you it's it's a nice little exercise
for trainees
well why do we do that why do we want
trainees to learn about what motivates
people to lie because it'll help you
determine if a statement is reliable
something similar happens here yeah I've
learned a long time ago that there are
only three reasons why anyone lies
they're the same three reasons why
anyone commits a murder you might think
oh I can think about 100 reasons why
somebody would come no there's only
three reasons why someone commits a
murder only three reasons why someone
commits a theft only three reasons why
you've ever done anything you as a
matter of fact all sin comes back to
only one of three motivations and once
you know what those three motivations
are you can actually test
to see if someone is lying to you let me
explain them to you maybe you're already
thinking this way the first is simple
financial gain people do a lot of crazy
things for money a lot of stupid occurs
because of the pursuit of money the
second one you might also kind of get
easily and that is either sexual or
relational lust those kinds of
motivations also will drive people to do
things they shouldn't do so we've got so
far money and sex
the third thing is a little more nuanced
it is the pursuit of power
of respect authority position influence
these are things that are in the power
category that motivate people to do
things they shouldn't do when someone's
lying to me
I always know that they're biased or
their motivation lies in one of those
three areas it makes it very easy to
assess a lie if we think that the claims
made in the gospels by the original
authors are lies okay we could test that
because if there are lies if they're
lying to us it's only for one of those
three reasons those are the only three
reasons why anyone ever lies
so the question then is what did these
writers have to gain in those three
areas do they get a lot of money on the
basis of their story
did they develop girlfriends or social
relation I mean seriously is that what
drove them to say these things
most people who are skeptical about the
gospels don't think it's those two
things that are driving the authors they
think it's in the third category it's
power it's influence
now remember earlier we talked about the
difference between possible and
reasonable I think it's quite possible
people could have written the gospels in
the pursuit of power or authority or
respect right at least they would be
popular within their little religious
community but if that's what's driving
them is that reasonable it might be
possible but is it reasonable think
about it Paul wrote most of the New
Testament right so you're saying he's
motivated by what why is he lying it's
not about money or sex you save it's
about Power Authority really so Paul
started off as a religious Jew in a
position of religious Authority and
respect in his local community in fact
he had enough Authority and respect to
draw the papers to execute Christians so
now you're telling me that Paul says I'm
going to jump out of my position of
authority and respect in my religious
community and jump in with these
Christians and get beat up all over the
known world for the next 20 years hoping
to someday return to a position of
authority and power and respect
he started with that
that's a possible explanation but it
strikes me as an entirely unreasonable
explanation especially considering how
every one of these authors died how
every one of these eyewitnesses that
look we know the stories are always
pretty much the same they are martyred
in some horrific way and whether we
don't we trust all those Legends are 100
true or not we know one thing no one
ever ever recanted No ancient Authority
ever claims that any of these people
ever recanted their story look if you
said to me that you were willing to die
for what you believe is a Christian I
would tell you up front that has zero
evidential value
lots of people will die for what they
don't know is a lie but this is the one
group that would know if it's a lie
their testimony is very different than
mine in this century
they would know if they're telling the
truth I have to trust on the basis of
reliability that they're telling me the
truth but they would know it because
they actually experienced it if they're
willing to die for their claims that's
worth considering if it's reliable and I
think that actually demonstrates its
reliability let me go one last objection
though that's offered sometimes in this
category and that is this
Jim
I need to have a story about Jesus
written by a non-Christian in order to
believe it I I can't believe a story
that's if it's written by Christians you
can't trust it they're biased they they
like Jesus of course they're going to
say nice things about Jesus they're
Christians so if you want me to believe
something about Jesus it cannot be from
a Christian Source oh my gosh that is so
stupid let me just kind of offer for you
why that doesn't make any sense to me
uh if you're working Robbery Homicide
which I've worked for a number of years
and there's no homicide that day you're
going to work a robbery I've worked a
ton of bank robberies let me tell you a
story about a bank robbery a guy walks
into a bank does a very clever bank
robbery he comes in he's got a pistol
under his jacket he's got a demand note
he puts it on the counter the teller
sees the demand note sees the edge of
the gun and she starts giving him money
the cameras are capturing all of this
but they don't see the gun all we see is
a little note and she just starts giving
him money it's a brilliant robbery if
you think about it the only problem is
he didn't notice when he walked in the
behind the assistant manager's desk was
a girl named Kathy who had gone to high
school with him and she recognized him
immediately
he didn't see her
she thought well when he's done with
this transaction I'll say hello
but now she looks at her co-worker the
teller and the teller's gonna look on
her face like I'm being robbed push the
button push the button I'm being robbed
Kathy is shocked
she's known this young man Mark Hill for
you know years and years but she's never
known him to be the kind of person who
ever do a bank robbery as a matter of
fact of all the people she would make a
list of who were capable of doing a bank
robbery this doubt being the bottom of
the list
yet here he is before her very eyes
doing a bank robbery do you think I
should go over an interview Kathy about
this I don't think so can't trust her
and after all she she's convinced that
Mark Hill is a bank robber you might say
she's a mark hillian you can't trust
Mark hellianist to tell the truth about
Mark Hill can you okay do you see how
stupid that is the fact that she is
convinced he's a bank robber does not
exclude her
why is she convinced because she saw it
with her own eyes she didn't start off
thinking he was a bank robber she ended
up there convicted about it because she
saw it with her own eyes now she writes
a story about it why would I toss it out
as not reliable because now she's in a
position of belief that Mark Hill is a
bank robber she's still credible so now
let's compare Matthew to to Kathy
um Matthew is a guy who is not expecting
the Messiah is not part of the
discipleship of John the Baptist he's a
guy named Levi who's collecting taxes
and he spends then three years with
Jesus after being invited to join them
and after seeing all the stuff that
Jesus does all Jesus teaches and three
years later he's now a Believer and he
writes an account called The Gospel of
Matthew look if you're looking for an
account that is written by a person who
is a skeptic before the event just like
Kathy was a skeptic before the event
it's called The Gospel of Matthew he's
not in it he's not writing it because he
was hoping for it to be true or he has a
bias he's writing it because he saw it
with his own eyes so now you've got four
four good reasons the only four ways
that we typically evaluate eyewitness to
determine if they're reliable we've just
applied them to the gospels and in all
four ways they measure up they're
written early enough they're
corroborated they haven't changed over
time and the people who wrote them don't
present a bias that would cause them to
lie to us
I got to the end of that
as a non-Christian evaluating the
gospels and I said well what do I do
with this now
what do I do with it
I mean it was true I made the case as
robustly as I could it's a cumulative
case in the participants guide you will
see I've drawn out for you now the
entire cumulative case it's powerful and
that's why when people ask me Jim why
are you a Christian I don't say well you
you know you got two hours I need about
two hours to tell you why it's a robust
cumulative case and it's worth our time
we have to master it so we can
communicate it to others I'm not a
Christian because it's convenient or it
works or it solves a problem or it it
and I'm a Christian because it's true
and we've just demonstrated it
evidentially
foreign
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
علي دعوة يفضح المسيحية في دقيقة واحدة فقط! - أسئلة صعبة عن المسيحية @AliDawah
P1 | Christian Homeschool Speech and Debate Students and Sheikh Uthman | One Message Foundation
Who Wrote the Gospels?
Lindisfarne Gospels
Bart Ehrman's Bad Arguments Go On Tour
A história do cristianismo só faz sentido se for verdadeira
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)