Some indicators of reliability of the Gospel from my point of view...though I certainly didn't come up with these on my own! 1. Something happened that sparked the amazing growth of Christianity. These 12 very ordinary men walked the planet, enduring amazing hardships in spreading the news about what they saw. Thomas made it to India...and of course the Apostle Paul changed the scope of Western civilization. Their message spread like wildfire despite very strong opposition and already established strong religions...the first place they would go when they entered a town was the synagogue to point out that Jesus was the messiah foreshadowed in Isaiah and other books of the Old Testament. Either they were seriously duped...or they honestly believed their message. I have a hard time believing these men would suffer the fates they would spreading what they know to be lies. 2. The accounts are not perfectly similar. Each Gospel was written by a separate person miles apart from one another. The stories are very very close...but there is believability in that they're not exactly the same. Events are a tad different in each story, as you would expect from people writing these down years later without corroboration. 3. The writers don't come off so well. They don't do a very good job of preserving a good place for themselves in history. They constantly make mistakes...they constantly judge among themselves who will be more glorified in heaven, etc...only to be brought back to focus by Jesus. I find reliability in that. I think most would present a far better view of themselves. 4. Paul - I was talking to Jeff about him over lunch a week or so again. Something happened to this guy that changed him...something pretty amazing. The guy was a very learned man of Judaism...a lawyer. He participated in the murder of Christians big time. Then something happens...and he becomes the greatest single ambassador the faith has ever had. He sacrifices EVERYTHING for this new faith. 5. Women were the first to tell the news that Jesus wasn't in the grave. At the time, women weren't even allowed to testify in court. Yet they were the first witnesses to the resurrection. If you're making that story up at the time, you don't use women to as initial witnesses. You just don't. Those are just a few...but make no mistake...ultimately whether or not Jesus is the son of God or not is a question of faith. Just as whether or not Mohammed was a prophet of God or not is ultimately a question of faith. Just as whether there is a deity at all is a question of faith. But most historians don't pretend that Jesus never walked the face of the earth. That seems to be, as Juan put it, quite a stretch given the expanse of the religion. The man had a following pretty quickly....without a real event, that seems highly unlikely. The interpretation of those events may be disputed..but their existence seems pretty probable.
Apostle Paul changed the scope of Western civilization. Who made Paul one of the twelve apostles? Paul wasn't even the founder of the churches he preached at.
you're absolutely right...i didn't mean to imply that he was one of the disciples..i was trying to hurry and it all came out jumbled together. sorry.
Read "The Acts of the Apostles" , dude. It's the book after the Gospels. sidenotes: Miracles are a combination of the event and the timing. Jesus's teachings are regurgitations of Old Testament teachings. (He was the fulfillment of them.) Although being an example of mercy and compassion is cool, you haven't experienced life until you know grace. Carry on.
Certainly there is evidence -- there are four Gospels that deal with the subject in some detail and a number of other texts that refer to him. There are also plenty of ancient documents that include Zeus, Hercules, and other Greek mythologic figures. That does not make them real. The history of the Gospels is not a frequent topic covered by most Christian churches. Thus, most people (including myself until recently) get the wrong impression about the Gospels history. They were not written immediately after the death of Jesus. The first Gospel that was written, Mark, is usually dated as early as 90 CE and as late as 120 CE. The earliest date is 60 years after the death of Jesus, by an author who had no first hand experiences with Jesus. This and this alone brings into question the authenticy of Mark. And another thing is that Paul in his letters rarely mention a historical Jesus as found in the Gospels. Paul's letters are the earliest date Christian writings (50-60 CE), yet merely is mentioned about the historical Jesus, like his divine birth from a virgin, his teachings, his healings, etc. The authencity of Paul's few mentions of a historical Jesus, to the one, are all hotly debated as redactions. To summuraize, Paul's cannonical letters which rarely mention a terrestrial Jesus were written 30 years before the first Gospel which does mention a terrestrial Jesus. Coincidence?
I believe that Jesus existed, but I don't believe in the christian concept of god. I think Jesus was a very talented evangelist and philosopher, but most of his modern day followers apparently didn't get the memo about being peaceful. Religion tries to take credit for morality as if we'd all be savages randomly killing each other if we didn't have the bible. There are a few simple rules for establishing a workable civilization, and those rules predate christianity by a couple of thousand years.
Circular logic doesn't help anyone. You cannot claim that a source has no authority and then use that same source to dispute other points. So your point of view about Paul, which is obviously wrong when one rereads the books he authored, is moot. You seem to have a big problem with dates and order. Because I disagree about Mark's first hand experience, you force me to go reresearch writings from antiquity to present. Even if you know in your heart it will be discredited, at least the effort will give me peace.
Hows about this: If intelligent life exists on planets, moons outside of earth (something that is seeming more and more probable, and which I believe to be true), would Jesus "the only son of god" be their savior too?
There are also plenty of ancient documents that include Zeus, Hercules, and other Greek mythologic figures. That does not make them real. I think you must misunderstand my meaning. I didn't say the writing of the Gospels means Jesus is real; I said the Gospels are evidence. They need to be evaluated on their merits but they don't disappear just because you don't believe them. The history of the Gospels is not a frequent topic covered by most Christian churches. Thus, most people (including myself until recently) get the wrong impression about the Gospels history. They were not written immediately after the death of Jesus. The first Gospel that was written, Mark, is usually dated as early as 90 CE and as late as 120 CE. The earliest date is 60 years after the death of Jesus, by an author who had no first hand experiences with Jesus. This and this alone brings into question the authenticy of Mark. "Usually dated?" I did a quick Google search to confirm my understanding of the date, since it didn't conform with yours. In numerous online sources, I'm seeing dates in the 50 to 70 AD range. I'm sure there are people putting it as late as 120 AD, but sayng Mark is usually date as early as 90 AD is disingenuous. It is true that Mark probably did not have first-hand experience of Jesus, but he was a disciple of Peter and it is understood to be Peter's story told by Mark. Perhaps not as good as having Peter, but no less reliable than having Plato write down Socrates' teachings. Besides all that, we're not asking if the Transfiguration actually occurred. We're just wondering did Jesus the person exist. Is Mark inadequate to answer that question? And another thing is that Paul in his letters rarely mention a historical Jesus as found in the Gospels. Paul's letters are the earliest date Christian writings (50-60 CE), yet merely is mentioned about the historical Jesus, like his divine birth from a virgin, his teachings, his healings, etc. I never really thought abou it; but I suppose you are probably right. Of course, most of Paul's writings are letters dealing with nitty-gritty theology stuff and isn't really a history the way the Gospels are. So, I'm not too surprised there aren't many mentions of Jesus as a person. But, do you think that Paul thought that Jesus was not a man? Especially when he keeps harping on the fact that God was made flesh? That stretches credulity. The authencity of Paul's few mentions of a historical Jesus, to the one, are all hotly debated as redactions. Well, they may be hotly debated by people wanting to prove that Jesus never existed. I don't think other scholars take it seriously. To summuraize, Paul's cannonical letters which rarely mention a terrestrial Jesus were written 30 years before the first Gospel which does mention a terrestrial Jesus. Coincidence? Besides the issue of the dates, which we've covered, I think this fact is easily explained by the aims in writing. The Gospels already existed from Jesus' death in an oral form. They were later committed to paper. Meanwhile, Paul was sending correspondence; something usually done in writing the first time round. And, after all that, I'll get back to what I was initially aiming at: why bother to deny the existence of Jesus, the man. It really isn't a very important piece of theolgyy for a nonbeliever. At the very least, I'd say that given the claims of Christianity, the writings of the Bible and the existence of the Church, the burden lies with detractors to actively prove he did not exist, instead of trying to cast suspicions on the evidence that he did.
I read a SF short story about 20 years ago about two space travelers from Earth who were hopping from planet to planet chasing after the Messiah. They kept missing him by hours, then minutes, then seconds. They could never catch him. Unfortunately I don't remember the title or who wrote it. Wish I did. What is the name of the Lewis trilogy?
You missed the point and went circular on me. The lack of Gospel material in Paul's letters is further proof that the Gospels were of latter origin and that the Gospels may not be authentic. Good luck in your search to prove that the Gospels predate Paul's letters. Early Christian Writings might help.
The trilogy is infomally the Space Trilogy. The books are Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength. Really, only the first deals with the salvation of sentient life off of Earth (on Mars in fact, in a cute classic sci-fi '50s sort of way). But, they all are set within an interplanetary spiritual environment, which is cool in a what-if sort of way (I think CS Lewis would be dissappointed if you took it too seriously).
I'm seeing dates in the 50 to 70 AD range. I'm sure there are people putting it as late as 120 AD, but sayng Mark is usually date as early as 90 AD is disingenuous. Dating the Gospels is hard work. Most scholars date Mark in the 70-75 CE range (my bad) but with that you usually get the following caveat: the date is the earliest possible date. The reason for the 70 CE date is that Mark references the burning of the Temple in the First Jewish War (66-70 CE?) There are also a passage that reference the Second Jewish War (132-135 CE), Mark 13:14,18. The addition of the Second Jewish War reference could have been made to a fairly mature work at the time. Who knows? The first known reference to Mark is : c.130 CE Papias writes a paragraph in a six-book work mentioning that the 'teachings' of Peter, recorded by Mark. Most scholars also agree that the last twelve versus of Mark were added in the second half of the second century to get Mark more in line with Matthew's and Luke's ressurection story. (There are either original manuscripts that lack the last twelve versus or historical references to them.)
Read the Selfish Gene. Love is a manifestation of our DNA's desire to propagate. Also, he refutes Jesus virgin birth as a mistranslation of the Greek, IIRC, from young girl to virgin girl.
Whoa! Perhaps you need to read Paul's letters! If I could refer you in particular to 1 Corinthians 15 - here Paul basically says that if there is no real person called Jesus, who really rose from the dead then anyone calling themselves a Christian is to be pitied more than anyone - their faith is futile and stupid! All Paul does in his letters is expound the teachings of this real Jesus to his readers.... To date Marks gospel later than 90AD is a bit weak, and doesn't hold a lot of support from careful scholarship. More in vogue is Markan priority, seeing it as written prior to any of the other gospels (and in the early 60's). Also, John's gospel can be dated back to the period of 60's-70's (thanks to fragments which have been found). As for redactions - just because a school of thought proposes a theory doesn't make it factual...... especially when a fair assesment of many of these theories shows just how humorous they are. You really are living the radical skeptics dream aren't you? Although I severely doubt that you apply your skepticism of the bible consistently in the rest of your life. Why are you trying to deny it so vehemently? Investigate the history fairly and find the good news that it reveals!
Of course these scholars are operating on the assumption that Jesus couldn't have possibly known that the temple was going to be burned (if in fact that is what that passage is referring to...). How then do they date Old Testament prophecies that came to pass, especially those that were fulfilled in Jesus? The point is that he lived a remarkable life, fulfilling over a hundred predications made centuries earlier, claiming to be God himself - to assume that Jesus can't have known the date of the temple is quite an assumption for a serious bible scholar. I think it's actually only the last eight verses (Mk 16:9-16) - but absolutely correct! Which is why most serious bible scholars don't regard those verses as part of scripture - they were an addendum, and it is clear that is the case (thanks to earlier manuscripts).
