Are the Gospels made up, non-historical accounts?

[Michie]

Q: Some of my non-Catholic friends say that most of the Gospel is made up, as the earliest records show Jesus survived the crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene and moved away, leaving his disciples to carry on their new religious movement. They say the Church was well aware of all of this, but covered it up. I’ve never heard anything like this. Could you comment?

A: I have heard various statements like this over the years in different contexts as attempts to supposedly refute Christianity in general. But in my mind, a basic knowledge of history and a bit of logical, common-sense reasoning makes such assertions seem far less plausible.

Our ‘earliest records’​

Continued below.

Are the Gospels made up, non-historical accounts?

Are the Gospels historically accurate representations of the life of Jesus and other significant events? A canonist delves into the question.

www.oursundayvisitor.com

 

[Hoping2]

Q: Some of my non-Catholic friends say that most of the Gospel is made up, as the earliest records show Jesus survived the crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene and moved away, leaving his disciples to carry on their new religious movement. They say the Church was well aware of all of this, but covered it up. I’ve never heard anything like this. Could you comment?

I would ask to see "those" records they refer to.

A: I have heard various statements like this over the years in different contexts as attempts to supposedly refute Christianity in general. But in my mind, a basic knowledge of history and a bit of logical, common-sense reasoning makes such assertions seem far less plausible.

Our ‘earliest records’​

Continued below.

Are the Gospels made up, non-historical accounts?

Are the Gospels historically accurate representations of the life of Jesus and other significant events? A canonist delves into the question.

www.oursundayvisitor.com

 

[RileyG]

I would ask to see "those" records they refer to.

I'm assuming they are referring to the Gnostic gospels, which are NOT canonical.

 

[Michie]

From the op:

First of all, when your friends refer to “the earliest records,” my guess is that they are not specifying exactly which writings they have in mind. This is because the books and letters of the New Testament, as well as some of the writings of the early Church Fathers, are actually our “earliest records” with respect to Christianity. The New Testament is generally considered to have been written roughly between the years A.D. 40-100, within the lifespan or at least the living memory of the Apostles who knew Jesus personally while he still walked the earth.


While there are some pseudo-Gospels (like the so-called “Gospel of Thomas”) from the ancient world which describe radically different and often more fanciful versions of Jesus’ life story, these were not included in the compilation that would ultimately become the Christian bible for a very good reason. Namely, because the Fathers of the Church — who were much closer in time to Jesus’ earthly life than we are now — discerned that these works were not historically accurate.

Perhaps this discernment might be construed as “knowing and covering it up,” but I think that’s a bit of a stretch. In the Church’s early centuries there were many spurious Gospel-themed accounts in existence, but they had roughly the same status as “fan fiction” today.

Declining to lend official endorsement to such spurious writings is not the same as arranging to hide them via secret conspiracy.

A new way of life​

​

Continued below.

Are the Gospels made up, non-historical accounts?

Are the Gospels historically accurate representations of the life of Jesus and other significant events? A canonist delves into the question.

www.oursundayvisitor.com

 

[Hoping2]

I'm assuming they are referring to the Gnostic gospels, which are NOT canonical.

I can't imagine unbelievers making a distinction between gnostic, and real gospels.
My post was only relevant to the OP's title.

 

[RileyG]

I can't imagine unbelievers making a distinction between gnostic, and real gospels.
My post was only relevant to the OP's title.

Or maybe they’re just repeating propaganda they heard someone else share? Who knows?

 

[Michie]

lol! It’s always best to read the content

 

[Hoping2]

Or maybe they’re just repeating propaganda they heard someone else share? Who knows?

Haters will hate, and deniers will deny...
The love of God is out there when they come around.

 

[RileyG]

lol! It’s always best to read the content

Yup!

 

[Lady Bug]

I sometimes get perplexed by people saying that the Gospels are made up but by the same token, some random unfounded claims about Jesus are immediately believed. e.g. Jesus went to India and he is buried there.

 

[Apple Sky]

@Michie

Laurence Gardener had a lot to do with these false claims in his book 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail'.

He claimed to be Jacobite Historiographer Royal of the Royal House of Stewart. He was an endorser of Michel Roger Lafosse, in particular his claims to be descended from the House of Stuart, which Gardner claimed was descended from Jesus Christ.

Gardner died on 12 August 2010 after a prolonged illness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Gardner