Evidence of Authenticity of Gospels

jaywill

Spirituality

25 Feb '07 20:16

jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
26 Feb '07 02:40
Originally posted by amannion
Not sure who you're trying to convince or what you're trying to convince them of.
Few people doubt the historicity of Jesus's life. Where there is a problem is in the interpretation of that life - what does it mean? Was he a really nice guy or was he the son of some god?

And really, do you think your notions are doing anything other than making you look ...[text shortened]... ve to make his work even more convincing. So of course flaws and mistakes would be included.
Some people have questioned that Jesus ever lived. Right here on this Forum they have possed the question of perhaps he never lived. THough I don't think they have to conviction to state that they believe that. They just like to throw up the possibility.

In interpreting the life of Jesus we have to take into account the gospel biographies as our major source.

This thread presents evidence unlikely to have been included had the authors intended to pass on a hoax of Jesus divinity when He was just an ordinary dying sinner like the rest of us.

Everyone knows that each gospel writer wants to indicate that the Son of God was stood by by His Father for vindication through every difficulty. Yet one writer records Jesus crying out "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me?"

Do you think that would have made his hoax more easy to sell or less easy? I think it makes his job harder to pass on a Man supported by God in everything. And the inclusion of the account leans towards the evidence of authenticity.
amannion
Andrew Mannion
Melbourne, Australia
Joined
17 Feb '04
Moves
53720
26 Feb '07 02:43
Originally posted by jaywill
Some people have questioned that Jesus ever lived. Right here on this Forum they have possed the question of perhaps he never lived. THough I don't think they have to conviction to state that they believe that. They just like to throw up the possibility.

In interpreting the life of Jesus we have to take into account the gospel biographies as our major so ...[text shortened]... d in everything. And the inclusion of the account leans towards the evidence of authenticity.
I think you're blind to the way spin doctors of any era sell something or someone.

How best to sell our man - the guru of the age?
Do we:
a. tell everyone how good he is and what a top bloke he is
b. show everyone that he has flaws like anyone else that he has overcome to be the person he is

Clearly b is going to be how he's presented.
jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
26 Feb '07 02:442 edits
As for the comment of me making myself look like a fool. I have decided that I will be a fool for Jesus Christ.

Whose fool are you? Oh, don't tell me you are nobody's fool.

Eventually, everyone has to trust somebody. Really it boils down to that. You eventually will put your trust in someone. You are therefore potentially that person's fool.

Ahosneys of this world, I have decided to be a fool for Jesus Christ and to trust Jesus Christ. Whose fool are you?
amannion
Andrew Mannion
Melbourne, Australia
Joined
17 Feb '04
Moves
53720
26 Feb '07 02:49
Originally posted by jaywill
As for the comment of me making myself look like a fool. I have decided that I will be a fool for Jesus Christ.

Whose fool are you? Oh, don't tell me you are nobody's fool.

Eventually, everyone has to trust somebody. Really it boils down to that. You eventually will put your trust in someone. You are therefore potentially that person's fool.

Ah ...[text shortened]... , I have decided to be a fool for Jesus Christ and to trust Jesus Christ. Whose fool are you?
You're right, but I prefer to place my trust in people and things that are of this world; things that exist within the natural.
That is, things that are real.
I enjoy a good fairy tale, but I'm not going to place my trust in one.
TheSkipper
Pimp!
Gangster Land
Joined
26 Mar '04
Moves
20772
26 Feb '07 04:09
Originally posted by josephw
I'm not sure where you get your information, but the canon of scripture was codified in the first century.
Where do you get this stuff?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament:

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council [ Council of Trent ].

The Council of Trent, of course, happened in the mid 16th century.

Keep in mind, also, that the cannonization of the Bible was a particularly human process where many writings were left out of the cannon for various reasons. Therefore, in you addition to your faith in God you necessarily have to have faith in the men who cannonized your Bible as well.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is the bible you, no doubt, have sitting next to you did not one day float down from heaven and land gently - gold-leafed, red-lettered, leather-bound and in seventeenth-century english - in the middle of a church.

TheSkipper
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
26 Feb '07 06:02
Originally posted by jaywill
Some people have questioned that Jesus ever lived. Right here on this Forum they have possed the question of perhaps he never lived. THough I don't think they have to conviction to state that they believe that. They just like to throw up the possibility.

In interpreting the life of Jesus we have to take into account the gospel biographies as our major so ...[text shortened]... d in everything. And the inclusion of the account leans towards the evidence of authenticity.
Where are you cutting and pasting this material from?

It's laughable anyway; there are many books regarding prophets, demigods, heroes, etc. etc. that are filled with incidents that show that others doubted them, opposed them or ridiculed them. This proves absolutely nothing as to the truthfulness of the claims made in the books.
eagleeye222001
Eye rival to Saurons
Land of 64 Squares
Joined
08 Dec '05
Moves
22521
26 Feb '07 06:20
Originally posted by no1marauder

It's laughable anyway; there are many books regarding prophets, demigods, heroes, etc. etc. that are filled with incidents that show that others doubted them, opposed them or ridiculed them. This proves absolutely nothing as to the truthfulness of the claims made in the books.[/b]
B.S. does not survive for 2,000 years.

The Bible has many different authors spanning many different times - what other work about heroes, demigods etc. share this trait?

The many different authors over different time periods give the Bible a much more credible account than something written by one person in one short time period.

What other works, that have survived for centuries continue to influence people as much or near to what the Bible does?

If the Bible was B.S., Christianity would have died out like any other fad, but for some apparent reason Christianity keeps spreading. I don't think B.S. could do that for 2,000 years!
twhitehead
Cape Town
Joined
14 Apr '05
Moves
52945
26 Feb '07 06:30
Originally posted by jaywill
I wanted to call this Thread [b]"Things Unlikely to be written in a Fictional Gospel." But that title is too long.

If the gospel writers were concocting a fictional account designed to be passed on as fact, are there some things that they would have been unlikely to include?[/b]
Most people who do not think that the New Testament is entirely factual do not necessarily think that the writers concocted it in the hope of 'passing it on as fact'.
A lot of the basic story line appears to have come from earlier documents and traditions. The writers then filled in apparent 'gaps' by making up stuff in order to make it fit both their own views as well as their interpretation prophesies from the old testament. The differences between some of the gospels tells us a lot about the writers beliefs and view points and intentions when telling particular bits.
The writers of the Gospels could not possibly have known Jesus personally or been present at any of the events. Information about many of the bits recorded in the Gospels would not normally have been passed down traditionally anyway.
We really have only two possible conclusions about the origin of much of the Gospels
1. It is inspired by God
or
2. It was invented by someone.
eagleeye222001
Eye rival to Saurons
Land of 64 Squares
Joined
08 Dec '05
Moves
22521
26 Feb '07 06:48
Originally posted by twhitehead

A lot of the basic story line appears to have come from earlier documents and traditions. The writers then filled in apparent 'gaps' by making up stuff in order to make it fit both their own views as well as their interpretation prophesies from the old testament. The differences between some of the gospels tells us a lot about the writers beliefs and view ...[text shortened]... of the bits recorded in the Gospels would not normally have been passed down traditionally anyway.
What earlier traditions and documentations did the "basic story line come from?

The writers fill in gaps? What gaps? Where did this idea come from and what basis?

It is possible that writers of the Gospels could have been around when Jesus was alive.

Assuming Jesus died pretty close to 33 A.D.
Gospel of Mark written approx 65 A.D.
Gospel of Matthew and Luke 80-85 A.D
Gospel of John 90 A.D. (this one I believe is up for debate but I think it's pretty brazen to assume none of the writers were around when Jesus was) The writers were probably close to the original followers of Jesus anyway.

What about oral tradition - which was very common back then?

What about "bits recorded in Gospel's would ... not normally... passed on?" What basis?
scottishinnz
Kichigai!
Osaka
Joined
27 Apr '05
Moves
8592
26 Feb '07 07:15
Originally posted by eagleeye222001
B.S. does not survive for 2,000 years.
There are many religions older than that - they cannot all be right (in fact, none of them are, but there you go). Even if your religion is right, it goes to show that you don't know that of which you talk.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
26 Feb '07 07:21
Originally posted by eagleeye222001
B.S. does not survive for 2,000 years.

The Bible has many different authors spanning many different times - what other work about heroes, demigods etc. share this trait?

The many different authors over different time periods give the Bible a much more credible account than something written by one person in one short time period.

What other w ...[text shortened]... pparent reason Christianity keeps spreading. I don't think B.S. could do that for 2,000 years!
The Bible has many different authors because it isn't a "book" but a collection of writings. The fact that a bunch of unrelated writings were thrown together doesn't validate the individual books in the Bible. As mentioned, what was to be in the Bible wasn't decided until at least 350 AD.

Many other books have lasted longer than the Bible although Fundamentalist Christians seem completely oblivious to this fact. Please actually get acquainted with some facts regarding ancient writings rather than simply parroting something some fraudulent preacher told you.
eagleeye222001
Eye rival to Saurons
Land of 64 Squares
Joined
08 Dec '05
Moves
22521
26 Feb '07 07:22
Originally posted by scottishinnz
There are many religions older than that - they cannot all be right (in fact, none of them are, but there you go). Even if your religion is right, it goes to show that you don't know that of which you talk.
-I like how you decide "none of them [religions] are right. Please elaborate.

-What were these religions that lasted longer than 2,000 years and please include references.
eagleeye222001
Eye rival to Saurons
Land of 64 Squares
Joined
08 Dec '05
Moves
22521
26 Feb '07 07:27
Originally posted by no1marauder
The Bible has many different authors because it isn't a "book" but a collection of writings. The fact that a bunch of unrelated writings were thrown together doesn't validate the individual books in the Bible. As mentioned, what was to be in the Bible wasn't decided until at least 350 AD.

The books are related. They deal with Jesus and God. Yet you call them "unrelated." Interesting. How are they unrelated?
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
26 Feb '07 07:351 edit
Originally posted by eagleeye222001
The Old Testament doesn't deal with Jesus at all.

As for the rest, here's an interesting article on Jesus from the Jewish perspective: http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
AThousandYoung
or different places
tinyurl.com/2tp8tyx8
Joined
23 Aug '04
Moves
26660
26 Feb '07 07:35
Originally posted by eagleeye222001
-I like how you decide "none of them [religions] are right. Please elaborate.

-What were these religions that lasted longer than 2,000 years and please include references.
Hinduism

http://ask.yahoo.com/20011106.html