Posted on 03/11/2014 6:32:04 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Among Catholics and atheists, is easy to exchange convinced assertions: “The gospels are 100% God’s holy Word and every bit is historically accurate!” or “The gospels are fairy tales!” However there is a discipline called “Biblical scholarship” in which scholars do some very interesting work determining just which parts of the gospels they think are reliable and which they think are not. Their conclusions are, of course, debated. That’s what scholars do. Their work is fascinating and it is worth taking some time to look at just a smidgen of their methodology and conclusions.
Bible scholars are most interested in trying to determine whether the original gospels record eyewitness accounts, and whether those original versions have been transmitted accurately. To do this scholars consider several factors: 1) authorship and date of composition, 2) intention and genre, 3) gospel sources and oral tradition, 4) textual criticism, 5) historical authenticity of specific sayings and narrative events.
One of the difficult aspects for modern people to understand is just what kind of document the gospels are. Everyone can admit that they are not written as purely historical documents, but neither are they simply fabulous fables, myths, or fairy tales. In continuity with the Old Testament, and consistent with their Jewish origins, we have documents which are presented as history and have plenty of historically verifiable details, but which also have supernatural and otherworldly elements to them
(Excerpt) Read more at strangenotions.com ...
The Gospels were written by eye-witnesses during the lifetime of other eye-witnesses, many of of whom would have refuted the historicity of the Gospels if they were not true.
Don’t give the secularists any leeway on this fact.
If your theory were true,
many would have stepped forward and refuted the accounts that were written during the lifetime of eye witnesses to the events recorded.
Regarding your “long game of telephone” comparison ... let me refer you to this website: http://coldcasechristianity.com/
You may want to start with this video, which shows that the “chain of custody” is a matter worthy of serious consideration:
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/the-importance-of-the-new-testament-chain-of-custody/
I am not mormon. I am speaking of the gospels, not mormon writings. Please do not ping me on mormon topics.
Perhaps you could present the historical claims for Buddhism. You have not presented evidence against the Gospels but your personal assertions. Assertions are not arguments.
“Perhaps you could present the historical claims for Buddhism.”
Why would I have to do that in the context of this line of inquiry? The point being debated here is the statement “A myth can’t survive 2,000 years.” I have no interest whatsoever to defend or present any ‘historical claims’ of an ancient belief system of any kind. I’m merely recognizing that evidence exists to dispute that declarative statement.
See my tagline.
The burden is upon the one asserting the claims.
Regards,
Well your paper is unlikely to make the ETS journal this year.
Still waiting for such evidence. I still only see assertions.
The fact that Buddhism still exists is fact. The Buddhist myth has survived for over 2,000 years. It's not that difficult to grasp.
Correct, and anyone challenging Luke is the one asserting the claim as to the lack of historicity of his account - they have the burden. Luke has already met his burden of going forward with his written testimony. The ball is therefore now in the court of anyone challenging those claims to back up that assertion.
Another point that complements yours ...
Prior to the discovery at Qumran, a popular theory among liberal scholars was that Isaiah 53 had to be entirely fabricated ... to make it look like Jesus literally fulfilled OT prophecy.
The fact that chapter 53 was contained in the Isaiah scrolls at Qumran, exactly as in the 915AD docs is an embarrassment that they have yet to recover from.
faith..and when the principles of non judgment are seen and followed, they work!
but the bible is missing an important link to the holy spirit...that link has been rediscovered here..www.fhu.com
Have you ever read the book about Luke entitled “Theophilus” by Michael O’Brien. Some fiction but a lot of historical fact. I couldn’t put it down.
The story of the ancient world is recorded by several historians of old, such as Homer, Josephus, Tacitus, Xenophon, Herodotus—called “the father of history,” and Thucydides, who is credited as being one of the most trustworthy of ancient sources. All of them suffer in comparison to the historical pinpoint accuracy of Luke.
Luke was undeniably brilliant, possessing remarkable literary abilities and a deep knowledge of the Greek language. He was the only non-Jewish author of the Bible. Yet he wrote more of the New Testament than anyone else—28 percent. He was a physician and a scientist. He was a writer and a medical missionary. He has proved himself a historian of first rank. Here he tells us that before writing his Gospel, he did the work of an investigative journalist, recording his findings in an orderly manner based on careful investigation: “It seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (
With that in mind, remember that Luke painstakingly and confidently described the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in his Gospel, chapters 23 and 24; and he repeatedly made reference to the Resurrection in the book of Acts.
The brilliant Wilbur Smith said:
"Of all the writers in the New Testament, Luke was the one who knew better than any of them, from his own medical experience, that it was utterly impossible for a dead body to come to life again by its own power. He was also a man who would have no faith in such a great doctrine as the resurrection of Christ, were it based upon a vision, a hallucination, mental excitement, or the blowing of the wind, or the rattling of a window. It was the conviction of this scientist and scholar, true Grecian and true Christian, that the Lord manifested himself to his disciples in many proofs." To reject the Resurrection, you have to disregard the demonstrated reliability of one of the foremost historians of the first century, a man who has been proven accurate even in the minutia of his narrative. How accurate was Luke's historical record? He tied everything into history and gave us historical anchors all along the way, both in his Gospel and Acts. His historical pegs have proven accurate even in minute points. For example, notice the way he began chapter 2: those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register” (Luke 2:1–3).
Luke did not just say that Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem. He said they traveled there because of a census instituted by Caesar Augustus and that this particular census occurred while a man named Quirinius was governor of Syria. A hundred years ago, critics had a field day with that statement, finding no evidence in history to suggest that Caesar ever issued such a decree. Furthermore (critics charged) there was nothing to suggest that Quirinius was ever governor of Syria at the time prescribed by Luke. Then a series of discoveries were made. Sir William Ramsay, the Scottish archaeologist, dug up first-century documents showing that the Roman Empire conducted a regular taxpaying census every fourteen years and that this system originated in the days of Caesar Augustus. Another document was found in Egypt, an edict of G. Vibius Maximus written on papyrus, describing the procedure used in such a census, directing taxpayers to return to their ancestral towns to register. Another inscription discovered by Ramsay in Antioch showed that with brief interruptions, a man named Quirinius functioned as military governor in Syria from 12 b.c. to a.d. 16.
Notice in the next chapter, Luke 3, how meticulously Luke nails down his historical references: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert” (Luke 3:1–2)
Sound like misty legend and fabricated fable? Anything but! Luke tacks John’s ministry to the wall of history using six different pins. John the Baptist appeared when (1) Tiberius Caesar was in his fifteenth year of rule; (2) Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea; (3) Herod was tetrarch of Galilee; (4) Herod’s brother Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis; (5) Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene; and (6) Annas and Caiaphas were sharing the office of high priest. Most of these facts are easy to verify, but a couple of them caused problems. A hundred years ago, critics were attacking Luke’s reference to Lysanias, saying, “The only Lysanias mentioned in history was killed in 36 b.c., sixty years before John the Baptist.” But the critics were stilled when archaeologists excavated an inscription near Damascus, stating that a man named Lysanias was indeed tetrarch of Abilene at the time mentioned by Luke. The skeptics also made hay with Pontius Pilate. For most of modern history his name has been absent on every historical document we have from the ancient world. Critics charged that Pilate was a fabrication. But a stone I have personally seen and took a picture of was excavated in Caesarea. It has the name Pontius Pilate plainly engraved for all the world to see. He was governor of Judea during the very time given by Luke, and he was headquartered at Caesarea.
I mentioned earlier how William Ramsay traveled to the Middle East to disprove Luke’s historical references and how, to his great surprise, he found the writings of Luke accurate in their tiniest details. This is even more remarkable when we consider that every other historian in the ancient world—men like Polybius, Quintilian, Xenophon, Josephus, and even Thucydides—did not hesitate to misrecord the facts to suit their own purposes.
http://agapewwm.webs.com/apps/blog/show/14917424
**Man couldn’t have written the Bible even if he wanted to and wouldn’t have even if he could.**
But don’t you agree that these Gospel authors did write the Gospels inspired by the Holy Spirit, part of the triune Godhead?
Thus, they are partly authored by God, correct?
Did St. Paul write his writings solely on his own. No, he too, wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Then examine their claims before using them as an example. You would have to provide evidence their history is a myth or contains historical evidence proving their claim. To use comparative myths, you would have to at least provide evidence one or the other is clearly myth. I have seen nothing of the kind here.
“Still waiting for such evidence. I still only see assertions.”
That Buddhism is over 2,000 years old? I don’t understand what you are looking for me to provide.
I have not, I will put it on the list. Thanks.
I've already stated it's a myth. I don't care what the claims are. The *myth* has survived.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.