Evidence of Authenticity of Gospels

Originally posted by josephw
I've done the research. The 66 books contained in the bible are just as they were at the end of the first century. Anything and everything else is a forgery.

This is completely wrong.

The Septuagint (the Bible that Jesus' followers evidently preferred, given that they quote it so many
times) was the preferred Hebrew canon in Jesus' area. The removal of the so-called deutero-canonical
books was done at the very end of the 1st century in a ceremony that cursed what was then a growing
sect of Christians. That is, the Jewish authorities cursed the name of the Christians as they
ratified the 66 books that you mention. By contrast, the early Christians clearly used the Septuagint
as their Hebrew Scripture, the contents of which were ratified along with the books of the New
Testament in the 4th century.

Nemesio

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


I don't think that is realistic. I think that is the less likely scenario.

And it is not realistic that peope would have an attitude "Oh boy, let's make up more stories about this Jesus person so we too can get ourselves stoned like Stephen or thrust through with a sword like James."

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

Where am I cutting and pasting this stuff from?

I'm not cutting and pasting. I am re-writing what I have read from a number of sources. That includes my own study of the New Testament.

Maybe it amazes you that some of us think its worthwhile to seriously study the New Testament ?

Where are you cutting and pasting your question from anyway ???

Enjoy your great big belly laugh.

To continue, as our friends, roll across the floor laughing ...

There are other things which are curious inclusions in the New Testament if it had been a hoax. There are teachings which have the potential of nullifying the credibility of Christ.

John recorded that Jesus said this:

"Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes into Me, even if he should die, shall live; And every one who lives and believes into Me shall by no means die forever. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25)

Now there is an issue of what did Jesus really mean. But if He meant that anyone who was alive, upon believing in Him, would continue to live forever, that could be disputed. Some disciples who believed had died.

In fact we have every logical reason to believe that Lazarus died a second time after he was resurrected. Unless we can locate Lazarus today, we assume that he died. Other people who Jesus raised from the dead probably died a second time.

Now, why wouldn't the apostle John have wanted to conceal this potentially embarressing saying of Christ? Why would he make up such a problematic saying and put it into Jesus' mouth?

I think the evidence of its inclusion in John's gospel argues for its authenticity. Jesus probably really did say it. And John probably was faithful to record it WITHOUT prejudice and preference to easier sayings of Jesus.

The inclusion of difficult teachings of Jesus lean towards the authenticity of the account, IMO.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Funny, God's Chosen People i.e. the Jews don't believe that Jesus' birth (if it happened) was of any special significance; they're still waiting for the Messiah foretold in the OT.

Any significance to the fact that they also at one point wanted to stone Moses, choose a new leader, and have the new leader lead them back to Egypt?

Now if the disciples of Jesus wanted to put a hoax over on the world it is curious that they would include some unsavory information about their own weaknesses.

1.) I think they would rather conceal the fact that they sometimes were dim witted in understanding what Jesus was teaching (Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34; John 12:16)

Would they have an attitude "Hey we want you all to believe us. By the way, Jesus said a number of times we weren't to swift to get it."

Propoganda of the false type would boast at how quick they were to catch on to everything the Master taught. Confessing their own slowness would supply incremenating symptoms of their unreliability.

2.) They recorded that they were uncaring and fell asleep on Jesus in His greatest hour of need. He had specifically asked them to remain awake and pray for Him (Mark 14:32-41)

If it were a hoax how come they weren't concerned that people would question their commitment to Christ? They couldn't even stay awake with Him on the night of His betrayal.

3.) Once again they record that they couldn't even give their friend and Master a proper burial. A relative outsider had to do that while they were off hiding behind locked doors.

4.) Now if Peter were really a leader among the twelve in the hoax, it would have been better to present him as fearless. Instead we have a candid and embarressing account of his cowardice.

What? The leader of the twelve disciples denied Jesus three times? And once before a little maiden ???

The inclusion of this embarressing account of the foremost disciple's cowardice leans towards probable authenticity and candor of the account.

5.) Again the arguable "leader" of the twelve disciples was rebuke by the Master who addressed him as "Satan" at one point (Mark 8:33)

Now this is curious. Can we imagine Peter as the ring leader of a great hoax allows Mark, his youthful assistant, to record in his gospel that Peter was scolded so severely as to be called "Satan?"

The inclusion of the candid record argues for the authenticity of the event rather than for its concoction as fiction, IMO.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Funny, God's Chosen People i.e. the Jews don't believe that Jesus' birth (if it happened) was of any special significance; they're still waiting for the Messiah foretold in the OT.

I think the point of the Jews rejecting Christ as the Messiah is a statement on mankind. They were, after all typical human beings.

People, are simply not for God, period. If He had come as an American, He would have been rejected by Americans. If He had come as a Woman, She would have been rejected by women. Say He had come as a Black person. He probably would have been rejected by Blacks. Say He had come as a Chinese, as European, as Mexican.

"He came to His own and His own received Him not." Is the statement of the New Testament. Typically, all social groups are just not for God. All races, in the last analysis, are simply not for God. All classes of social rank, in the last analysis, are just not for God.

It is God's mercy that any of us believe in Christ. Man's basic problem - we simply are not for God - period.

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
Jesus' birth is foretold in the book of Isaiah. The Old Testament centers on God's chosen people and the prophets who lead them.

Interesting article. I like how it reads at the top "This document has been swiped from elsewhere on the internet."

I also like how the link to it's original source doesn't work.

I will read it and examine it.

...[text shortened]... pertaining to non-biblical evidence for Jesus.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

Jesus' birth is foretold in the book of Isaiah.

Not really. That is an interpretation. The author of the gospel of Matthew used Isaiah 7:14 as part of his interpretive midrash. I have no problem with that. But, as ATY once pointed out, if we’re going to take 7:14 literally, maybe we should be looking for somebody whose name “was called Immanuel.” (the only occurrence of that name in the Christian scriptures is in Mathew’s quote of 7:14.

Similarly for other “prophetic fortellings” of Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. Again, I have no problem with anyone choosing to accept those interpretations.

Isaiah (45:1) also called King Cyrus the messiah: “Thus says YHVH to his messiah (Hebrew, moshiach), to Cyrus....”

moshiach means “anointed.” The word, translated thus, occurs 82 times in the Hebrew Scriptures—44 times as a noun referring to a person (in a couple of instances, plural). Saul, for example, and David, are referred to God’s moshiach. The label is attached to anyone who is viewed as having been “anointed” to carry out God’s will.

Judaism is not, and was not, as “messianic” as some Christians tend to assume. There is no universal or “orthodox” understanding of who/what might be “the” messiah. Messianic movements within Judaism, such as the Essenes or the followers of Jesus, are generally minority streams, more prominent at some periods of history than others.

____________________________________

The Talmud is full of references to messiah, but none of them are definitive (the Talmud is not a collection of definitive statements, but of interpretations, rabbinical opinions and argument, and stories, which serves as the springboard for the continuing oral Torah). Some examples, just for flavor—

“Rabbi Hillel said: ‘Israel need not look for the advent of messiah, since Isaiah’s prophecy about him was already fulfilled in King Hezekiah.’” Tractate Sanhedrin, 98b (Hillel was an older contemporary of Jesus.)

“Rabbi Akiva was rebuked by Rabbi Jose, the Galilean, for ‘profaning the Divine Presence’ by teaching that the messiah occupies a throne alongside God. (If miracles are to be performed, God alone will perform them. The messiah’s advent will not change the course of nature.)” Tractate Hagigah, 14a

“All the prophets who prophesied have only made predictions regarding the Messiah. As regards eternity, it is said in Isaiah 64:4 ‘neither hath eye seen, O God, beside Thee, what He hath prepared for him who waiteth for Him.’” Tractate Sanhedrin, 99a

“Rabbi Yohanan said, ‘The world was created for the sake of the messiah; what is this messiah’s name?’ The school of Rabbi Shila said, ‘His name is Shilo, for it is written “until Shilo comes.”’ (genesis 49:10)” Tractate Sanhedrin, 98b

“Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai used to say: ‘If there be a plant in your hand when they say to you: ‘Behold the Messiah! —Go and plant the plant, and afterward go out to greet him.’” Avot de-Rabbi Natan [I have found two imterpretations of this saying thus far: (1) that planting a tree is a greater mitzvah than greeting the messiah; and (2) that one should not be too eager to look for the messiah, since there have been so many....]

“There is no Messiah...and you’re it!” Rabbi Robert N. Levine, from his book by the same title.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Yeah, that means Christianity is correct. It didn't used to be; back in the day, Christianity was wrong. I mean...it wasn't the most popular religion in A.D. 50, so it must have been wrong back then!

And, since Islam is the fastest growing religion, soon it will be correct and Christianity will be wrong again.

Speaking for myself and not another poster, my purpose here is not to argue that the most popular religion must be true. Popularity is not my concern at the moment. If that were the case then perhaps the Beatles have it hands down.

My concern on this thread, is the inclusion of information in the gospels which suggest candor, authenticity, genuine testimony to typical human behavior etc. (or behavior taught by Jesus) is less likely to have been included had a coordinated effort to deceive the world taken place.

Let's take another simple example about the authorship of the book of Matthew.

When other gospels mention the list of twelve disciples, Matthew's name comes one notch before it appears in the gospel of Matthew. Mark and Luke listed Matthew before Thomas (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), but the Gospel of Matthew lists Matthew AFTER Thomas (Matthew 10:2-5).

This has a ring of authenticity to me. It indicates that the author of Matthew was indeed Matthew. Since Jesus had taught the disciples that the last shall be first and the first shall be last, and since He sent them out two by two before Him, the humilty of Matthew listing himself after Thomas rather than before suggests authenticity.

Probably, they all recognized Matthew as having more weight than Thomas. But in his own humilty he listed himself second after his partner Thomas.

The wieght of the evidence to me is for the authenticity of Matthew's Gospel as written by himself, rather than its concoction as a fiction by hoax makers.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think the point of the Jews rejecting Christ as the Messiah is a statement on mankind. They were, after all typical human beings.

People, are simply not for God, period. If He had come as an American, He would have been rejected by Americans. If He had come as a Woman, She would have been rejected by women. Say He had come as a Black person. He probabl ...[text shortened]... that any of us believe in Christ. Man's basic problem - we simply are not for God - period.

“By saying that the Jews ‘rejected’ him, however, we are in a sense already speaking in Christian language. Only a tiny fraction of the Jews alive at the time were aware of his existence...

“If the Jews comprised 6 million people across the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and if—estimating liberally—60,000 heard him teach, and if half of those formed a definite opinion of the man, then we are talking about 0.5 percent of the Jewish people then alive who either ‘accepted’ or ‘rejected’ Jesus—that is, 1 out of every 200 Jews. To speak of ‘the Jews’ corporately taking any position vis-à-vis the Christian savior is, then, quite a stretch.”

—David Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus

The estimated Jewish population of Judea and Galilee at the time was about 700,000. If 100,000 of them either heard Jesus, or heard about him, from others, that is less than 15% who ever heard of him. Even if all of those formed a definite opinion, that still leaves 85% of Jews in the area (not counting the other 5 million + in the diaspora) who simply didn’t know who he was.

Jesus just may not have been the hottest news in Galilee/Judea at the time...

_____________________________

All of this, however, is an aside to the main thread topic here...

Originally posted by vistesd
“By saying that the Jews ‘rejected’ him, however, we are in a sense already speaking in Christian language. Only a tiny fraction of the Jews alive at the time were aware of his existence...

“If the Jews comprised 6 million people across the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and if—estimating liberally—60,000 heard him teach, and if half of those formed ...[text shortened]... __________________________

All of this, however, is an aside to the main thread topic here...

I don't think numbers are as significant as the timing and the quality of Jewish scholars who should have recognized theologically, that God was answering their prayers and His own promises.

Were there millions of Jews on the earth or only hundreds or only thousands? I think that is secondary to the reaction of the scribes, chief priests, Pharisees, Saducees, and the people present.

Also, subsequent numbers of Jews, in following generations, would have added to your numbers.

Now the first Christian disciples were Jews, were Jews, were Jews. That is more significant, I think.

And the tension portrayed in the book of Acts between the new faith and the old in this transitional period, suggests authenticity that the Christian faith was indeed based in the beliefs of the Jews. For example, the tensions between the Judiazers and the workers of Paul, the tension caused by the advice of James to Paul, and the scolding of Peter by Paul to drop the old way and adopt the new.

The New Testament simply has its hands on too much genuine sounding testimonial to be dismissed as fiction.

You keep using the word "hoax", seeming to suggest that scores of people think the Bible and Christianity is some elaborate deception. I don't think most critics are really suggesting the Bible is the product of a hoax but rather that the authors were simply wrong. Or that somewhere in the countless translations and re-translations and copies of copies some or most of the meaning got lost among the various books. Or that the authors were writing to achieve some sort of shot term gain by convincing a group of people to behave a certain way.

Suffice to say, i hope you agree that just because the Bible is not a "hoax" does not necesarily mean it is inspired by God or that it is even true/accurate.

Not to say there are not reasonably convincing arguments showing parts of the Bible to be both true and accurate, I just don't think this is one of them.

TheSkipper
TheSkipper

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't think numbers are as significant as the timing and the quality of Jewish scholars who should have recognized theologically, that God was answering their prayers and His own promises.

Were there millions of Jews on the earth or only hundreds or only thousands? I think that is secondary to the reaction of the scribes, chief priests, Pharisees, Sad ...[text shortened]... ament simply has its hands on too much genuine sounding testimonial to be dismissed as fiction.

...who should have recognized theologically, that God was answering their prayers and His own promises.

Well, this goes back to my post about multifaceted Jewish viewpoints on messiah, and that “theological messianism” was not some kind of creedal doctrine. To say “should have” is to speak from an already assumptive Christian viewpoint.

It also has a lot to do with how you read the texts, and Jews read them wholly differently from (most) Christians—midrashic exegesis is a different paradigm.

The rest of your points are well-taken. Jews have said, over the centuries, why they don’t think Jesus was the messiah. But they don’t make that the center of their religious life. Jews do not think of their religion as “non-Christianity.” Nor is it “the religion of the ‘Old Testament.’” Judaism is the religion of the dual Torah (written and oral), and the written part of the oral tradition (the Talmuds and Midrashic texts) are not the corpus of the oral tradition, which continues—for example, everytime someone brings their “torah” to the Torah to search out new interpretations.
___________________________________________

Some notes on redemption and messianism in Judaism:

From David S. Ariel, What Do Jews Believe?:

Martin Buber (interpreting the Hasidic understanding, which may be the most closely linked with “personal” redemption): “There is no definite magic action that is effective for redemption.; only the hallowing of all actions without distinction possesses redemptive power. Only out of the redemption of everyday does the Day of redemption grow.” (my italics)

Reform Judaism: “More recently, the Reform concept of messianism has come to mean the result of human effort on behalf of creating the perfect world.”

Conservative Judaism: “The Conservative credo is agnostic on the question of the Messiah: ‘We do not know when the Messiah will come, nor whether he will be a charismatic figure or is a symbol of the redemption of humankind from the evils of the world..”

A difference between Judaism and Christianity: “The major Jewish objection to Christianity is that Judaism regards the Messiah as a human being, and the Christian deification of a person constitutes idolatry.”

Quoted in Jurgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ:

Martin Buber: “We know more deeply, more truly, that world history has not been turned upside down to its very foundations—that the world is not yet redeemed. We sense its unredeemedness….The redemption of the world is for us indivisibly one with the perfecting of creation, with the establishment of the unity which nothing more prevents, the unity which is no longer controverted, and which is realized in all the protean variety of the world. Redemption is one with the Kingdom of God in its fulfillment. An anticipation of any single part of the completed redemption of the world—for example the redemption beforehand of the soul—is something we cannot grasp….” (italics in original)

Schalom Ben Chorin: “In Jewish eyes, redemption means redemption from all evil. Evil of body and soul, evil in creation and civilization. So when we say redemption, we mean the whole of redemption. Between creation and redemption we know only one caesura: the revelation of God’s will.”

Gershom Scholem: “It is a completely different concept of redemption which determines the attitude to messianism in Judaism and Christianity….In all its shapes and forms, Judaism has always adhered to a concept of redemption which sees it as a process that takes place publicly, on the stage of history and in the medium of the community; in short, which essentially takes place in the visible world, and cannot be thought of except as a phenomenon that appears in what is already visible. Christianity, on the other hand, understands redemption as a happening in the spiritual sphere, and in what is invisible. It takes place in the soul, in the world of every individual, and effects a mysterious transformation to which nothing in the external world necessarily corresponds….[This] has always seemed to the religious thinkers of Judaism an illegitimate anticipation of something which could at best come about as the inward side of an event which takes place essentially in the outward world; but this inward side could never be separated from that event itself.” (my italics)

_______________________________

Now, these views are not monolithic, nor are they exhaustive (I just happened to have this handy); and whether these writers’ understanding of Christianity is any better than most Christians’ understanding of Judaism, I do not know. You will, of course, be able to mount Christian counter-arguments. The arguments have gone on for a long time. The disagreement is fine; I respect your faith.

______________________________

The New Testament simply has its hands on too much genuine sounding accounts to be dismissed as fiction.

I have never dismissed the NT as wholly fiction, nor accepted it as wholly fact. I tend to view a lot of it as a midrashic weaving of text and history and religious symbolism. Matthew was a skilled midrashist. Paul was a profound midrashist (who could quote the Jewish Scriptures from the Hebrew, Greek Septuagint, or Aramaic Targum versions, depending on what he wanted to emphasize).

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]...who should have recognized theologically, that God was answering their prayers and His own promises.

Well, this goes back to my post about multifaceted Jewish viewpoints on messiah, and that “theological messianism” was not some kind of creedal doctrine. To say “should have” is to speak from an already assumptive Christian viewpoint.

It also ...[text shortened]... Hebrew, Greek Septuagint, or Aramaic Targum versions, depending on what he wanted to emphasize).[/b]

I am going to try to stick with my subject although what you wrote was interesting.

The New Testament writers not only included potentially embarressing material and difficult to understand sayings of Jesus. They also left in some of the most demanding sayings.

In other words, if it was a fiction, they certainly did not go out of their way to make life easy for themselves as His disciples. The most demanding teachings of Jesus were not left out:

1.) "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:28)

I can see a Woman's Liberationist proporting that to be the oracles of God but not the typical human male! Guys, we're all through!

This demanding saying of Jesus surely did indicate that the gospel writers wanted to skew thier rememberance of the Master's words toward the less implicating teachings. This one in Matthew 5:28 seems to implicate men as hopelessly disqualified to be disciples of Jesus.

Actually, I think the point is that only a man of perfect self control could live this way. And that person was Jesus according to the Gospels.

2.) The male authors of the Gospels, had they concocted teachings to put into the mouth of a fictitious Teacher, didn't choose this one because it was easy to accept:

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery" (Matt. 5:32)

Very demanding. If they wanted large numbers to become followers of a fictional or exagerated Jesus, this teaching was not the way to obtain that. Its inclusion suggests their faithfulness to not skip over demanding sayings of the Teacher.

It suggests the authenticity of Christ probably having said that.

3.) Under the Roman occupation what profit would it have been to concoct a fictional Messiah who said this?

"I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45)

Would it have been easy to make up a Savior Who taught His disciples to love the Roman occupiers who persecuted and oppressed them? The inclusion of this saying suggest authenticity. He probably did say such an unexpected axiom under Roman Imperialism of the Jewish Promise Land. It is too radical to have been fiction, IMO.

In all its shapes and forms, Judaism has always adhered to a concept of redemption which sees it as a process that takes place publicly, on the stage of history and in the medium of the community; in short, which essentially takes place in the visible world, and cannot be thought of except as a phenomenon that appears in what is already visible. Christianity, on the other hand, understands redemption as a happening in the spiritual sphere, and in what is invisible. It takes place in the soul, in the world of every individual, and effects a mysterious transformation to which nothing in the external world necessarily corresponds….[This] has always seemed to the religious thinkers of Judaism an illegitimate anticipation of something which could at best come about as the inward side of an event which takes place essentially in the outward world; but this inward side could never be separated from that event itself.” (my italics)

I am not sure this is defensible.

In the Christian gospel redemption is also a process, very much. And also has its public side. Paul spoke of the redemption of our bodies. And this physical redemption would be marveled at in the world. He taught of redemption as a culmination of a life long process of obedience to the indwelling Christ.

I don't think your paragraph here is defensible.