Tweet
Re: Truth about the Golden Compass movie
I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate. We can continue to go back and forth but neither are going to get anywhere. There are sources to back up either point of view. I commend you on your knowledge of scripture, history, and science. You are a very intelligent individual and like I said before I have great respect for you.
With that being said I am bowing out now because just like in the science protion of this discussion we are just going to end up chasing our tails. And honestly if I don't think I am going to change someones opinion then I would rather not put in the time to type these lengthy responses required to make my points.
Thanks again. I have not had my brain stimulated like this in a while (sometimes to the point where it was almost on fire...LOL)
Originally posted by mandarb11
View Post
Originally Posted by Scalleywag
Wow! There is a lot here to get into. Are you trying to keep me held captive at my computer? LOL
I am going to have to go about this in a round-about way. Let’s look at the Gospels as we would any ancient document. Apply to them the same criteria historians apply to other ancient documents when they research history. I contend that when the Gospels are treated in this critical-historical way, they fare very well and can be trusted to tell us a good deal about the person of Jesus Christ.
Being a history major I am sure you are familiar with these criteria. They can be divided into two groups: Internal (inside the document in question) and External (what’s happening outside the document in question)
Internal Criteria
1. Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about? Does the test claim to be an eyewitness account, or based on an eyewitness account? Or is it based on hearsay?
Luke who is not an eyewitness, tells us that he is using eyewitness sources and that he is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of the things he records (Luke 1:1-4). John tells us he is an eyewitness, and the other two Gospels, Mark and Matthew, is both written from the perspective of an eyewitness, though they never come out and explicitly claims this: they just assume it. Other sources in the early second century confirm that the authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (This is external criteria #2)
The authors have an agenda, to prove their beliefs so we must take into account their prejudices when considering them as authors. The works were not attributed to any of the disciples until the council of synod in 393CE! Before that they were just one of many, many gospels. Look up the Nag Hammadi scrolls.....many different interpretations of Jesus' life!
If your agenda is to commit suicide then I would say they had an agenda. These men were facing persecution and eventual martyrdom. No, it is clear that these aurthors had the truth in mind.
2. Does the document in question contain specific and especially irrelevant material? (First hand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which aren’t central to the story, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalized)
The Gospels are full of this sort of irrelevant detail which typically accompanies eyewitness accounts.
Incorrect, irrelevant material is the result of the authors trying to preserve all the oral traditions about Jesus. Originally all of Jesus' stories were transmitted orally, therefore scholars hold that only the shortest and easiest to remember passages like sayings and parables would be the closest to what Jesus might have said as people are not usually very good at transmitting longer stories. Look at Mark, it is just a group of stories thrown together, not even in proper order if you ever look into the geographical areas discussed.
No my friend, you are incorrect. This is criteria set by historians which conclude that irrelevant detail accompanies eyewitness accounts. This is not from me this is from historians.
I hope you get the point. There is no reason to throw in this type of irrelevant detail. It contributes nothing to the story line, except its just part of what happened, so the author throws it in as he recalls the event.
3. Does the document contain self-damaging material? (If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the heroes of the story, or especially on the truthfulness of the story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.
The Gospels are also full of self-damaging detail. For example, in the Resurrection account you just read, a woman is said to be the first one to discover that the tomb was empty. But this could only damage the early testimony of the early Christians, as women in the first-century Jewish culture were regarded as incurable “talebearers”. They couldn’t even testify in court. Moreover, the disciples are consistently portrayed in a bad light. And even aspects of Jesus’ life are included, which, if the story were being fabricated to convince people of His messiahship, would have been excluded. For example, on the cross Jesus cried out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” Now this is hardly what one would expect from the Messiah, especially if the Messiah is supposed to be divine. It’s a tough statement but it only proves the point. The only motive anyone could have for including this in his account is because Jesus actually said it!
Ah but which version is true and accurate since the gospels do not agree with what Jesus' last words were:
According to Mark and Matthew:
Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani
According to Luke:
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (in response to a mocking crowd)
Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (in response to one of the two thieves crucified next to him)
Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (last words)
According to John:
Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (directed at Mary, the mother of Jesus, either as a self reference, or as a reference to the beloved disciple and an instruction to the disciple himself)
I thirst (just before a wetted sponge, mentioned by all the Canonical Gospels, is offered)
It is finished (last words)
So according to you they all must be true! lol
These are accounts of what Christ said on the cross. It all fits together to give us an order of events. Once again, there is damaging material here to this story. Historians (not me) attribute this to genuiness.
4. Is the document reasonably self-consistent? (There is coherence to truth which fabrications usually lack, though different perspectives on a single historical account usually include some minor discrepancies.)
The Gospels present a consistent portrait of who Jesus is and what He did, as well as the events that surround his life. If the four accounts were individually fabricated, where did the consistency come from? But there are also significant differences in each account, showing the relative differences in their perspectives. If they were all fabricated together the consistency would be greater than we find.
The gospels are very different from one another. Mark has his Jesus being more human, very little in the way of extensive dialogue, trying to keep his identity a secret (known as the messianic secret), mark and Luke borrow heavily from Mark, and Luke actually tries to correct so historical and geographic errors that Mark made....John well that Jesus is nothing like all the others, he is a god first and a man second....I will elaborate more on this in my next post....
The Gospels are different from one another which I said in my post. They are given by seperate perspectives but still have constiencies. Like the way Christ teaches and the terms He uses.
External
1. Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?
What possible motive would the early disciples have had for fabricating stories about Jesus? They claim to believe in Jesus because of His miracles and His resurrection, combined with the kind of life He lived and teachings He gave. And for from gaining anything from this, they suffered great persecution for it. Would they lie? And is there anything about their character which would lead us to think that they were the kind of people who deceived others? No scholar I know of doubts the disciples’ sincerity.
What possible motive would a author have to construct stories trying to prove that their beliefs are true....that is an easy one. The authors like in ever religion, are trying to convince people of the truth of their religion, under your ideals ever religious text written must be true! This point makes no sense whatsoever!
Once again, these aurthors are dying for their beliefs. I don't know of anyone that would die for a lie just to be deceitful.
2. Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and/or which substantiate the genuiness of the document?
As I said before, the authorship of these Gospels is attested to by numerous sources in the second century, and they were in a better position to know than anyone today. We can also ascertain some things about Jesus and the early disciples, things which fit in well with the Gospels, from other secular ancient sources such as Tacitus (ca55-1200, Suetonius (early second century), Josephus (ca 37-93), Thallus (mid first century), as well as ancient Jewish writings written against the Christians (the Talmud).
Non of these outside sources confirm that Jesus was alive, Sutonius and Tacitus mention Christians not Jesus in particular and also were born long after the fact......Same as with Josephus, Thallus etc, all born after the fact and all talk about Christians in general, not particular aspect to confirm Jesus was even in existence. I shall elaborate further on this as well!
We are talking the aurthorship of these Gospels which these accounts DID attest to.
3. Does archeology support or go against material in the document?
While their have always been archeologists who claim that their findings are in tension with some aspects of the biblical account of things, time and time again these findings have been reversed in favor of the biblical account. To give one example, it used to be held by some that Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus was fabricated. He says that an empire-wide census was being taken during the reign of Caesar Augustus, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem where Joseph was born to register, which is when Jesus was born. But we know from ancient sources (e.g. Josephus) that Quirnius was governor beginning in A.D. 6, and there was no evidence for a census like this ever being taken. So, it was assumed, Luke must be in error. We now know, however, that censuses like the kind Luke mentioned were frequent, and Quirinius’ reign in A.D. 6 was his second reign.
First off there are so many historical errors in the gospels that I can write a whole book on them alone but I will save that for later. Secondly even if something is set in a historical context does not make the charactor itself real. Ever heard of historical fiction?
So now this is fabricated? These gusy are making up tall tales that can possibley get them killed? Please, you have to do beter than that.
4. Could contemporaries of the document falsify the documents account, and would they have a motive for doing so?
Finally, Christianity was born in a very hostile environment. There were contemporaries who would have refuted the Gospel portrait of Jesus-if they could have. The leaders of Judaism in the first century tended to view Christianity as a pernicious cult and would have loved to see it stamped out. And this would have been easy to do-if the “cult” had been based on fabrications. Why, just bringing forth the body of the slain Jesus would have been sufficient to extinguish Christianity once and for all.
In spite of this, however, Christianity exploded (in a positive sense). The disciples preached their Gospel to people who had been eyewitnesses of the things they claimed Jesus said and did. How could they have fabricated it? And even those opposed to Christianity did not deny Jesus did miracles, and did not deny his tomb was empty. The facts behind the Gospel are not questioned. What is questioned is how the facts were established. The opponents claimed that Jesus did what He did either through trickery, or the power of Satan, and that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (But see External Criteria #1)
I guess you don't realize how unimportant Christianity was to the Jews and Romans. It was an extremely small sect, with very few converts (it only started to gain adherents 30 years after Jesus' death when Paul started his teachings. This goes back to my point of the circumcision faction that Paul mentions. Among the Jews Christianity was not spreading and the gentiles were not converting either as the origianal followers of Jesus said that to be a Christian one had to first be a Jew, that meant you had to get circumcised, meet all the dietary restrictions, follow the sabbath etc. Paul argued that this was not required, only faith alone mattered. This is a very important feud in early Christianity which as we all know today was won by Paul. The Jerusalem apostles and Jesus' family all argued that they had the athourity to say not Paul since Paul had never even seen Jesus.....Read Paul letters to his different schools he set up....
Christianity being unimportant is just way off base. Saul himself was making it his life's mission to persecute the Christians. He obtained permission in order to do so. Someone with Paul's promise as an up and coming Pharisee wouldn't take on that mission if Christianity wasn't important. He wouldn't have wasted his time.
To sum it all up I think we have very good grounds for treating the Gospels like generally reliable documents; they are generally good sources of history for us. And this has nothing to do with them being “inspired” or “God’s Word”: its just history.
In the face of history, one must make a decision. One must regard Jesus as an unthinkably clever charlatan (but very stupid also because he got Himself crucified) who tricked his way into people’s faith, or the Lord He and His followers claimed He was. My claim is only the latter is founded on evidence.
Pertaining to prophecies, you say that everything was written after the fact but that is not true. If you look at the evidence the key to dating the Gospels is Acts. It is accepted by almost all scholars (both liberal and conservative) that Acts came after the Gospels (with the possible exception of John). The synoptic Gospels can not be dated later than Acts which I argue was dated some time in the early 60s of the first century. Here’s why.
Luke (the accepted author of Acts) makes no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.70. This would be most remarkable if Acts was written after this date, especially because Luke is, throughout Acts, centrally interested in events which occur in Jerusalem. In fact, Luke makes no mention of the war that broke out between the Jews and the Romans in A.D. 66 which led to the fall of Jerusalem, though throughout his works he is concerned with Roman-Jewish relations. For example, he mentions the minor skirmish which occurred between these two in A.D.44. But how could he then pass up the much more significant war that happened 22 years later, a war that resulted in the destruction of the Jewish temple and the sacking of Jerusalem?
What really drives home the point is the fact that Jesus, in Luke’s Gospel, prophesies that Jerusalem would fall (Luke 21). It is, I think, most unlikely to suppose that Luke missed this opportunity to show how this prophecy was fulfilled-especially when one consider that one of the reasons Luke wrote Acts in the first place was to show how the working of the Spirit in the early church carries and fulfills the ministry of Jesus.
Luke is traditionally attributed to 60 CE, but most scholars date it between 70-100 CE and scholars are divided on if it can even be attributed to Luke! But even if it was the same author, that author does not appear to have had any 1st hand experience of Jesus or even of Paul! In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the third person — the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts. An alternate theory is that the use of "we" was a stylistic idiosyncrasy used in many sea travel narratives written around the same time as Acts.
Look we can sit here and argue whether Luke wrote this Gospel and when he wrote it. You can site your sources and I can site mine. The evidence points to Luke being the author and most scholars agree. Scholars also agree that Acts came after Luke which would have put the writing in the mid 50s.
Scholars also point to a number of apparent theological and factual discrepancies between Luke-Acts and Paul's letters. For example, Acts and the Pauline letters appear to disagree about the number and timings of Paul's visits to Jerusalem, and Paul's own account of his conversion is slightly different from the account given in Acts. Similarly, some believe the theology of Luke-Acts is slightly different from the theology espoused by Paul in his letters. This would suggest that the author of Luke-Acts did not have direct contact with Paul, but instead may have relied upon other sources for his portrayal of Paul.
Acts also made no mention of Nero’s persecution of Christians in the mid-60s. In fact, his view of the Roman government is positively irenic. This requires us to place th document at a time when the Roman government was not hostile to Christians, a time prior to Nero.
Luke, in Acts, makes no mention of the martyrdom of Paul (A.D. 64) and Peter (A.D. 65), though he is very concerned to note the martyrdoms of “lesser” Christian leaders (e.g. Stephen and James). This is especially remarkable because half the Book of Acts is about Paul and a large part is about Peter. This is impossible to make sense of if Luke is writing after their deaths.
This was not meant to be a historical text, but rather to establish the legitamacy of Paul's teachings. Two glaring discrepencies between Acts and Pauls letters, the account given by Paul of his visits to Jerusalem in Galatians as compared with Acts; and the character and mission of the apostle Paul, as they appear in his letters and in Acts.
Off base again. He mentioned plenty of historical evernts. Lesser events for that matter. He would have mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem. He also would have mentioned the deaths of Paul and Peter since he did the deaths of two lesser apostles. The reason he didn't is simple....it hadn't happened yet.
Much of the subject matter of Acts concerns issues which are important before the fall of Jerusalem, but not after. This reflects the needs and interests of the audience, and audience which clearly has not yet experienced the fall of Jerusalem.
Luke’s record of people and events in the Roman Empire has time and time again been substantiated by archeology. He reflects a detailed knowledge of the early first century, a knowledge which grows increasingly unlikely the later we date this document.
Luke uses expressions I Acts which were used widely early on in Christianity, but not later-not after A.D. 70. Jesus, for example, is called “the Son of Man” but this title of Jesus died out very early in Christian circles.
Finally, to add one more thing to the evidence I’ve already presented, one finds throughout the Synoptic Gospels a recognizable “style” to Jesus’ teaching. Though they reword His teachings to an extent, His unique way of teaching comes out in all three. For example, He often uses a threefold pattern to His teaching. He uses “amen” (= truly) in a very unique way. He raises questions in a distinct manner, etc. If the authors were not associated with Jesus, and if they were fabricating this (why would they want to do that?), this commonality between the authors would be inexplicable.
The Gospels (at least three of them) were written some time prior to A.D. 60, before Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the temple. All of that for one prophesy….LOL.
From Wikipedia:
In contrast to the traditional view, many contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source text used by the author of Luke, following from the theory of Markan Priority. Since Mark may have been written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, Luke would not have been written before 70. These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. One argument is that the references to the Jerusalem temple's destruction are seen as evidence of a post-70 date. The universalization of the message of Luke is believed to reflect a theology that took time to develop. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred. Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on christology, eschatology, and soteriology that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.
I can't believe you continue to quote wikipedia. Anyone can add to or edit. Not exactly a source to base beliefs on.
Debate continues among non-traditionalists about whether Luke was written before or after the end of the 1st century. Those who would date it later argue that it was written in response to heterodoxical movements of the early 2nd century, for example see Gospel of Marcion.[44] Those who would date it earlier point out both that Luke lacks knowledge of the episcopal system, which had been developed in the 2nd century, and that an earlier date preserves the traditional connection of the gospel with the Luke who was a follower of Paul.
As far as the circumcision faction goes. Why would we get into the attitudes of the day and an early division among the church if we can’t establish if there is a God, much less Christ being the Messiah? Its all irrelevant if neither of these are fact.
Refer to my post above as to the importance of this!
So to also rebutt Klashs post, No I am using a historical document for the basis of my beliefs.
OK I hope this will be a little easier to discern my responses!
Wow! There is a lot here to get into. Are you trying to keep me held captive at my computer? LOL
I am going to have to go about this in a round-about way. Let’s look at the Gospels as we would any ancient document. Apply to them the same criteria historians apply to other ancient documents when they research history. I contend that when the Gospels are treated in this critical-historical way, they fare very well and can be trusted to tell us a good deal about the person of Jesus Christ.
Being a history major I am sure you are familiar with these criteria. They can be divided into two groups: Internal (inside the document in question) and External (what’s happening outside the document in question)
Internal Criteria
1. Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about? Does the test claim to be an eyewitness account, or based on an eyewitness account? Or is it based on hearsay?
Luke who is not an eyewitness, tells us that he is using eyewitness sources and that he is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of the things he records (Luke 1:1-4). John tells us he is an eyewitness, and the other two Gospels, Mark and Matthew, is both written from the perspective of an eyewitness, though they never come out and explicitly claims this: they just assume it. Other sources in the early second century confirm that the authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (This is external criteria #2)
The authors have an agenda, to prove their beliefs so we must take into account their prejudices when considering them as authors. The works were not attributed to any of the disciples until the council of synod in 393CE! Before that they were just one of many, many gospels. Look up the Nag Hammadi scrolls.....many different interpretations of Jesus' life!
If your agenda is to commit suicide then I would say they had an agenda. These men were facing persecution and eventual martyrdom. No, it is clear that these aurthors had the truth in mind.
2. Does the document in question contain specific and especially irrelevant material? (First hand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which aren’t central to the story, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalized)
The Gospels are full of this sort of irrelevant detail which typically accompanies eyewitness accounts.
Incorrect, irrelevant material is the result of the authors trying to preserve all the oral traditions about Jesus. Originally all of Jesus' stories were transmitted orally, therefore scholars hold that only the shortest and easiest to remember passages like sayings and parables would be the closest to what Jesus might have said as people are not usually very good at transmitting longer stories. Look at Mark, it is just a group of stories thrown together, not even in proper order if you ever look into the geographical areas discussed.
No my friend, you are incorrect. This is criteria set by historians which conclude that irrelevant detail accompanies eyewitness accounts. This is not from me this is from historians.
I hope you get the point. There is no reason to throw in this type of irrelevant detail. It contributes nothing to the story line, except its just part of what happened, so the author throws it in as he recalls the event.
3. Does the document contain self-damaging material? (If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the heroes of the story, or especially on the truthfulness of the story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.
The Gospels are also full of self-damaging detail. For example, in the Resurrection account you just read, a woman is said to be the first one to discover that the tomb was empty. But this could only damage the early testimony of the early Christians, as women in the first-century Jewish culture were regarded as incurable “talebearers”. They couldn’t even testify in court. Moreover, the disciples are consistently portrayed in a bad light. And even aspects of Jesus’ life are included, which, if the story were being fabricated to convince people of His messiahship, would have been excluded. For example, on the cross Jesus cried out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” Now this is hardly what one would expect from the Messiah, especially if the Messiah is supposed to be divine. It’s a tough statement but it only proves the point. The only motive anyone could have for including this in his account is because Jesus actually said it!
Ah but which version is true and accurate since the gospels do not agree with what Jesus' last words were:
According to Mark and Matthew:
Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani
According to Luke:
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (in response to a mocking crowd)
Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (in response to one of the two thieves crucified next to him)
Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (last words)
According to John:
Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (directed at Mary, the mother of Jesus, either as a self reference, or as a reference to the beloved disciple and an instruction to the disciple himself)
I thirst (just before a wetted sponge, mentioned by all the Canonical Gospels, is offered)
It is finished (last words)
So according to you they all must be true! lol
These are accounts of what Christ said on the cross. It all fits together to give us an order of events. Once again, there is damaging material here to this story. Historians (not me) attribute this to genuiness.
4. Is the document reasonably self-consistent? (There is coherence to truth which fabrications usually lack, though different perspectives on a single historical account usually include some minor discrepancies.)
The Gospels present a consistent portrait of who Jesus is and what He did, as well as the events that surround his life. If the four accounts were individually fabricated, where did the consistency come from? But there are also significant differences in each account, showing the relative differences in their perspectives. If they were all fabricated together the consistency would be greater than we find.
The gospels are very different from one another. Mark has his Jesus being more human, very little in the way of extensive dialogue, trying to keep his identity a secret (known as the messianic secret), mark and Luke borrow heavily from Mark, and Luke actually tries to correct so historical and geographic errors that Mark made....John well that Jesus is nothing like all the others, he is a god first and a man second....I will elaborate more on this in my next post....
The Gospels are different from one another which I said in my post. They are given by seperate perspectives but still have constiencies. Like the way Christ teaches and the terms He uses.
External
1. Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?
What possible motive would the early disciples have had for fabricating stories about Jesus? They claim to believe in Jesus because of His miracles and His resurrection, combined with the kind of life He lived and teachings He gave. And for from gaining anything from this, they suffered great persecution for it. Would they lie? And is there anything about their character which would lead us to think that they were the kind of people who deceived others? No scholar I know of doubts the disciples’ sincerity.
What possible motive would a author have to construct stories trying to prove that their beliefs are true....that is an easy one. The authors like in ever religion, are trying to convince people of the truth of their religion, under your ideals ever religious text written must be true! This point makes no sense whatsoever!
Once again, these aurthors are dying for their beliefs. I don't know of anyone that would die for a lie just to be deceitful.
2. Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and/or which substantiate the genuiness of the document?
As I said before, the authorship of these Gospels is attested to by numerous sources in the second century, and they were in a better position to know than anyone today. We can also ascertain some things about Jesus and the early disciples, things which fit in well with the Gospels, from other secular ancient sources such as Tacitus (ca55-1200, Suetonius (early second century), Josephus (ca 37-93), Thallus (mid first century), as well as ancient Jewish writings written against the Christians (the Talmud).
Non of these outside sources confirm that Jesus was alive, Sutonius and Tacitus mention Christians not Jesus in particular and also were born long after the fact......Same as with Josephus, Thallus etc, all born after the fact and all talk about Christians in general, not particular aspect to confirm Jesus was even in existence. I shall elaborate further on this as well!
We are talking the aurthorship of these Gospels which these accounts DID attest to.
3. Does archeology support or go against material in the document?
While their have always been archeologists who claim that their findings are in tension with some aspects of the biblical account of things, time and time again these findings have been reversed in favor of the biblical account. To give one example, it used to be held by some that Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus was fabricated. He says that an empire-wide census was being taken during the reign of Caesar Augustus, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem where Joseph was born to register, which is when Jesus was born. But we know from ancient sources (e.g. Josephus) that Quirnius was governor beginning in A.D. 6, and there was no evidence for a census like this ever being taken. So, it was assumed, Luke must be in error. We now know, however, that censuses like the kind Luke mentioned were frequent, and Quirinius’ reign in A.D. 6 was his second reign.
First off there are so many historical errors in the gospels that I can write a whole book on them alone but I will save that for later. Secondly even if something is set in a historical context does not make the charactor itself real. Ever heard of historical fiction?
So now this is fabricated? These gusy are making up tall tales that can possibley get them killed? Please, you have to do beter than that.
4. Could contemporaries of the document falsify the documents account, and would they have a motive for doing so?
Finally, Christianity was born in a very hostile environment. There were contemporaries who would have refuted the Gospel portrait of Jesus-if they could have. The leaders of Judaism in the first century tended to view Christianity as a pernicious cult and would have loved to see it stamped out. And this would have been easy to do-if the “cult” had been based on fabrications. Why, just bringing forth the body of the slain Jesus would have been sufficient to extinguish Christianity once and for all.
In spite of this, however, Christianity exploded (in a positive sense). The disciples preached their Gospel to people who had been eyewitnesses of the things they claimed Jesus said and did. How could they have fabricated it? And even those opposed to Christianity did not deny Jesus did miracles, and did not deny his tomb was empty. The facts behind the Gospel are not questioned. What is questioned is how the facts were established. The opponents claimed that Jesus did what He did either through trickery, or the power of Satan, and that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (But see External Criteria #1)
I guess you don't realize how unimportant Christianity was to the Jews and Romans. It was an extremely small sect, with very few converts (it only started to gain adherents 30 years after Jesus' death when Paul started his teachings. This goes back to my point of the circumcision faction that Paul mentions. Among the Jews Christianity was not spreading and the gentiles were not converting either as the origianal followers of Jesus said that to be a Christian one had to first be a Jew, that meant you had to get circumcised, meet all the dietary restrictions, follow the sabbath etc. Paul argued that this was not required, only faith alone mattered. This is a very important feud in early Christianity which as we all know today was won by Paul. The Jerusalem apostles and Jesus' family all argued that they had the athourity to say not Paul since Paul had never even seen Jesus.....Read Paul letters to his different schools he set up....
Christianity being unimportant is just way off base. Saul himself was making it his life's mission to persecute the Christians. He obtained permission in order to do so. Someone with Paul's promise as an up and coming Pharisee wouldn't take on that mission if Christianity wasn't important. He wouldn't have wasted his time.
To sum it all up I think we have very good grounds for treating the Gospels like generally reliable documents; they are generally good sources of history for us. And this has nothing to do with them being “inspired” or “God’s Word”: its just history.
In the face of history, one must make a decision. One must regard Jesus as an unthinkably clever charlatan (but very stupid also because he got Himself crucified) who tricked his way into people’s faith, or the Lord He and His followers claimed He was. My claim is only the latter is founded on evidence.
Pertaining to prophecies, you say that everything was written after the fact but that is not true. If you look at the evidence the key to dating the Gospels is Acts. It is accepted by almost all scholars (both liberal and conservative) that Acts came after the Gospels (with the possible exception of John). The synoptic Gospels can not be dated later than Acts which I argue was dated some time in the early 60s of the first century. Here’s why.
Luke (the accepted author of Acts) makes no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.70. This would be most remarkable if Acts was written after this date, especially because Luke is, throughout Acts, centrally interested in events which occur in Jerusalem. In fact, Luke makes no mention of the war that broke out between the Jews and the Romans in A.D. 66 which led to the fall of Jerusalem, though throughout his works he is concerned with Roman-Jewish relations. For example, he mentions the minor skirmish which occurred between these two in A.D.44. But how could he then pass up the much more significant war that happened 22 years later, a war that resulted in the destruction of the Jewish temple and the sacking of Jerusalem?
What really drives home the point is the fact that Jesus, in Luke’s Gospel, prophesies that Jerusalem would fall (Luke 21). It is, I think, most unlikely to suppose that Luke missed this opportunity to show how this prophecy was fulfilled-especially when one consider that one of the reasons Luke wrote Acts in the first place was to show how the working of the Spirit in the early church carries and fulfills the ministry of Jesus.
Luke is traditionally attributed to 60 CE, but most scholars date it between 70-100 CE and scholars are divided on if it can even be attributed to Luke! But even if it was the same author, that author does not appear to have had any 1st hand experience of Jesus or even of Paul! In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the third person — the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts. An alternate theory is that the use of "we" was a stylistic idiosyncrasy used in many sea travel narratives written around the same time as Acts.
Look we can sit here and argue whether Luke wrote this Gospel and when he wrote it. You can site your sources and I can site mine. The evidence points to Luke being the author and most scholars agree. Scholars also agree that Acts came after Luke which would have put the writing in the mid 50s.
Scholars also point to a number of apparent theological and factual discrepancies between Luke-Acts and Paul's letters. For example, Acts and the Pauline letters appear to disagree about the number and timings of Paul's visits to Jerusalem, and Paul's own account of his conversion is slightly different from the account given in Acts. Similarly, some believe the theology of Luke-Acts is slightly different from the theology espoused by Paul in his letters. This would suggest that the author of Luke-Acts did not have direct contact with Paul, but instead may have relied upon other sources for his portrayal of Paul.
Acts also made no mention of Nero’s persecution of Christians in the mid-60s. In fact, his view of the Roman government is positively irenic. This requires us to place th document at a time when the Roman government was not hostile to Christians, a time prior to Nero.
Luke, in Acts, makes no mention of the martyrdom of Paul (A.D. 64) and Peter (A.D. 65), though he is very concerned to note the martyrdoms of “lesser” Christian leaders (e.g. Stephen and James). This is especially remarkable because half the Book of Acts is about Paul and a large part is about Peter. This is impossible to make sense of if Luke is writing after their deaths.
This was not meant to be a historical text, but rather to establish the legitamacy of Paul's teachings. Two glaring discrepencies between Acts and Pauls letters, the account given by Paul of his visits to Jerusalem in Galatians as compared with Acts; and the character and mission of the apostle Paul, as they appear in his letters and in Acts.
Off base again. He mentioned plenty of historical evernts. Lesser events for that matter. He would have mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem. He also would have mentioned the deaths of Paul and Peter since he did the deaths of two lesser apostles. The reason he didn't is simple....it hadn't happened yet.
Much of the subject matter of Acts concerns issues which are important before the fall of Jerusalem, but not after. This reflects the needs and interests of the audience, and audience which clearly has not yet experienced the fall of Jerusalem.
Luke’s record of people and events in the Roman Empire has time and time again been substantiated by archeology. He reflects a detailed knowledge of the early first century, a knowledge which grows increasingly unlikely the later we date this document.
Luke uses expressions I Acts which were used widely early on in Christianity, but not later-not after A.D. 70. Jesus, for example, is called “the Son of Man” but this title of Jesus died out very early in Christian circles.
Finally, to add one more thing to the evidence I’ve already presented, one finds throughout the Synoptic Gospels a recognizable “style” to Jesus’ teaching. Though they reword His teachings to an extent, His unique way of teaching comes out in all three. For example, He often uses a threefold pattern to His teaching. He uses “amen” (= truly) in a very unique way. He raises questions in a distinct manner, etc. If the authors were not associated with Jesus, and if they were fabricating this (why would they want to do that?), this commonality between the authors would be inexplicable.
The Gospels (at least three of them) were written some time prior to A.D. 60, before Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the temple. All of that for one prophesy….LOL.
From Wikipedia:
In contrast to the traditional view, many contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source text used by the author of Luke, following from the theory of Markan Priority. Since Mark may have been written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, Luke would not have been written before 70. These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. One argument is that the references to the Jerusalem temple's destruction are seen as evidence of a post-70 date. The universalization of the message of Luke is believed to reflect a theology that took time to develop. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred. Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on christology, eschatology, and soteriology that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.
I can't believe you continue to quote wikipedia. Anyone can add to or edit. Not exactly a source to base beliefs on.
Debate continues among non-traditionalists about whether Luke was written before or after the end of the 1st century. Those who would date it later argue that it was written in response to heterodoxical movements of the early 2nd century, for example see Gospel of Marcion.[44] Those who would date it earlier point out both that Luke lacks knowledge of the episcopal system, which had been developed in the 2nd century, and that an earlier date preserves the traditional connection of the gospel with the Luke who was a follower of Paul.
As far as the circumcision faction goes. Why would we get into the attitudes of the day and an early division among the church if we can’t establish if there is a God, much less Christ being the Messiah? Its all irrelevant if neither of these are fact.
Refer to my post above as to the importance of this!
So to also rebutt Klashs post, No I am using a historical document for the basis of my beliefs.
OK I hope this will be a little easier to discern my responses!
With that being said I am bowing out now because just like in the science protion of this discussion we are just going to end up chasing our tails. And honestly if I don't think I am going to change someones opinion then I would rather not put in the time to type these lengthy responses required to make my points.
Thanks again. I have not had my brain stimulated like this in a while (sometimes to the point where it was almost on fire...LOL)
Comment