http://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?seqid=52
"What cannot be doubted is that many New Testament critics have approached the Gospels with an utterly unjustified skepticism--a skepticism that wouldn't be considered justified in any other branch of ancient history. New Testament scholar R. T. France declares that "at the level of their literary and historical character we have good reason to treat the Gospels as a source of information on the life and teachings of Jesus, and thus on the historical origins of Christianity."17 The Greco-Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White--evidently not a Christian--claimed: "It is astonishing that while Greco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of Gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn."
A very good article that dispells the popular myth that somehow the gospels were a fabrication.
Rex
No fabrication in Gospels
by Shining One 103 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
SickofLies
“We discover (in the gospels) a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication”
Thomas Jefferson quotes http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-sbd.htm
To support its thesis, The Jesus Mysteries details how little evidence there is for the historical existence of Jesus or the biblical Apostles to be found in non-Christian sources: Pagan and Jewish historians of the time, and Jewish scriptures. As archeologist John Romer remarks in Testament, our knowledge of earliest Christianity
is founded solely upon the Book of Acts and later church tradition. There is no mention at all of this period of Christian history in any other literature. We know only what later churches wanted to tell us. And this is also true of the beginnings of the Gospels. We are left with the evidence that can be gleaned from the Four Gospels themselves and a large number of conflicting statements made in the writings of the early church fathers. -- p. 188
Freke and Gandy make clear that the New Testament Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are not reliable historical reports, let alone independent eye-witness accounts. Though the relationship in time and of dependence among early Christian writings, canonical and non-canonical, is still very much debated, many biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written as a theological document later than the other canonical gospels, and that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, the last usually dated around 70 AD, though Freke and Gandy feel it is probably later. Nor is Mark, the first biographical treatment of Christian material, an actual chronicle: careful analysis has shown that it represents a joining together of many preexisting vignettes and wisdom sayings, organized to correspond to various Old Testament texts and episodes such as the Exodus. It does not include the birth or genealogy of Jesus and originally did not continue past the women finding the empty tomb and an implied resurrection. In the early version no resurrected Christ appears to the Apostles or anyone else.
-
Shazard
Strange, that sometimes sceptics refer to lack of evidence in roman, jewish and pagan writings and do not believe the ones who claims to be eyewitnesses when things can be verified very easy. It is like in court, to say that eyewitness of murder can't be trusted coz he shows evident bad attitude towards the suspect (why should he be neutral if he saw the event), and that's why we have to try to find evidence in somebody who is neutral towards suspect. Let's ask his gang friends if they confirm the events eyewitness is saying.
The problem I see here is that if enybody of you would see man ressurected you would believe it and witness it if you are asked. But sceptics says BECAUSE they believe, their witness is not reliable. So it seems that only good source of eveidence about Jesus is ones who were not there and who didn't see anything, coz everybody who have seen it claims the same BS!
So and the bottomline is... they can't be trusted coz I don't believe what they say! SO WHAT! You can believe what you want, but you can't refute eyewitness evidence only because you don't like what they are witnessing. And Witnessing SUCH events definetly change your attitude. Either you will scream about it from roofs or you will just try to stay as quiet as possible, and exactly THIS is what we can see... that those who are claimed to murder and try to silence Jesus after his ressurection keeps being silent instead of providing proofs of disciples lieing. Funny is claim, that Acts can't be trusted historically, but still Acts are one of the best sources of First century Palestina evidence and no honorable and serious Historican agree with such sceptics even if the historican himself is atheist. Paul at the cort in front of pagan ruler testifies, that everybody knows what happened, everybody can go out ask and check evidence, and it is obvious that ruler has nothing to say, coz everybody REALLY knows what happenned. It is like try to say, that there were no 9/11 and all of it is fabrication of American propoganda, and we can't rely on eyewitness evidence, coz they show the same attitude to the event. -
James Free
Of course there is fabrication. Jesus one-piece fabric clothes are discussed, and Dorcas was a maker of red fabric...on no thats in Acts.
LOL
-
Narkissos
What Christian apologists never deal with is the overwhelming cumulative evidence of the hundreds of narrative discrepancies in the canonical Gospels (e.g. the date of Jesus' death, where John opposes the Synoptics, as was discussed yesterday on JWD).
Those are pretty natural if the Gospels result from a literary development.
But when it comes to history, where are we supposed to find the correct historical data? In the first, shorter Gospel (Mark)? Or in its later diverging developments -- and which of the latter? In the very few events on which all four Gospels seem to agree? But then, why would those be historically true and the others wrong? Or in some modern diatessarôn, a "story behind the stories" which apologists make up to explain away each discrepancy?
Bottom line: any historical scenario which can be (re-)constructed from the Four Gospels is bound to cheat with each one of them. Apologists cannot read the Bible as it is.
-
hallelujah
Shining One If the Bible contains no error then why does the book of Mark have alternative endings?
-
trevor
Shining one
A very good article that dispels the popular myth that somehow the gospels were a fabrication.
You are as innocent and gullible as a child in a grotto, sitting on Father Christmas' knee.
Isn't fantasy and illusion great!
-
nicolaou
Rex
Don't know if you'll bother to address my specific comments here - you certainly haven't in the past. No fabrications in the gospels eh?
The physical impossibility of a man walking on water is not a fabrication?
The chemical impossibility of water into wine is not a fabrication?
The mathematical impossibility of the parts being greater than the whole (loaves & fishes) is not a fabrication?
The biological impossibility of three day old corpses being brought back to life is not a fabrication?
And if you ever decide to back up your ridiculous claims of Pascall's logic just let me know.
Nic'
-
gumby
Josephus didn't seem to think a man such as the one described in the gospels existed. The only mention of a man who fit his description in his writings was fabricated by others and added at a later time to his writings as all scholars admit to. No record of all jewish males being killed by Herod under the age of two as the bible mentions.
I guess Josephus couldn't be bothered by such trivial news eh?
Gumby
-
unclebruce
Saul/Paul and his close companions Matthew, Mark, Luke and John produced a series of writings that were succesful in ending the Nazarite threat against Rome by diverting the diasporas wealth from the 'zealots' and others in Palestine. I don't doubt Jesus existed but, as his brother James said "he is not remotely like the person promoted by Paul" (Rom 8?)
