Gospels are eyewitness accounts

[frater_domus]

Of course there are depths to scripture worth mining. But parts of the bible are meant to be taken literally being written in a literal historical style. Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus died, Jesus rose, Jesus ascended are all literal concepts. Of course they mean much more than just a birth, a death etc but unless you accept that Jesus came in the flesh and experienced the literal historical reality described in scripture then you are not encountering Him in scripture. That human context is the context in which He reveals His Divine nature.

What worldly inconsistencies exist in the scriptures as originally given?

One that comes to mind in the NT is that Matthew, Mark and Luke give the impression that Jesus’ ministry lasted a year, whereas John it is three years.
However, if this is correct, it matters little as the message of Jesus is not hindered by it.
Or the fact that Jesus and the adultress is considered a later addition, but it left in for the most part as it goes in line with the message of the gospel.
Or that part where Jesus sent his disciples out and in Matthew 10:10 he says no bag or extra shirt or sandals, whereas in Mark 6:9 it is written that he said sandals but no extra shirt. Well, did they with or without sandals? But as I said, this changes nothing about the message of the gospel and all versions of it fully agree on the primary points of it.

In the OT, the classic is genesis, the whole old vs young earth debate and how to reconcile Genesis with modern scientific discoveries. Personally though, it matters little to me, as the message of the sovereignty of God and that He is the creator of all is not hurt by it, neithet is the message given across by the passages about the original sin or the message given in the passage about Abel and Cain. I know there is a lot of debate about it, but the historicity of it matters little next to the divine message of these events. At least that is my opinion on it.

Still, this is about the NT, so let’s not turn this into a genesis vs science debate

 

[HitchSlap]

All four Gospels were written either by the disciples or their students, Jesus Christ not visiting certain countries is in where the Bible was written is irrelevant, Jesus Christ could speak Greek, and they didn’t borrow from each other as we see many differences between the accounts of the four Gospels.

Are the gospels signed by their authors?

 

[Barney2.0]

Are the gospels signed by their authors?

Ancient manuscripts of the Gospels bear the same titles and names as they do today, Gospel of Matthew, according to Matthew, etc.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ancient manuscripts of the Gospels bear the same titles and names as they do today, Gospel of Matthew, according to Matthew, etc.

Not true.

 

[ananda]

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

IMO it is impossible to tell: there is no chain of evidence.

 

[Petros2015]

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

Who was the witness to the prayers in the garden of Gethsemane? All the apostles were sleeping.

 

[mindlight]

Who was the witness to the prayers in the garden of Gethsemane? All the apostles were sleeping.

Jesus knew what he prayed there and must have told one of the disciples who were also there after the resurrection.

 

[mindlight]

IMO it is impossible to tell: there is no chain of evidence.

The church had chain of evidence. Thousands heard the apostles speak and could confirm the authenticity of manuscripts. It is those manuscripts that had the stamp of church approval that proliferated in number of copies and were kept. Historically we have a circle of witnesses described in scripture by the early church fathers, confirmed by early fragments of scripture and ultimately confirmed by the church councils that finalised the canon. Compared to any other ancient manuscript the audit trail is comprehensive.

 

[ananda]

The church had chain of evidence. Thousands heard the apostles speak and could confirm the authenticity of manuscripts. It is those manuscripts that had the stamp of church approval that proliferated in number of copies and were kept. Historically we have a circle of witnesses described in scripture by the early church fathers, confirmed by early fragments of scripture and ultimately confirmed by the church councils that finalised the canon. Compared to any other ancient manuscript the audit trail is comprehensive.

Who witnessed to the thousands who heard the apostles speak?

 

[mindlight]

I am not refering to the Poets, but the historiographers. So less the Iliad or Aenead, and more the Annals or such. The Gospels squarely fall in the same class of writings as Thucydides or Tacitus, Ctesias or Josephus. These were all grounded on real events, but there simply was not the same idea of how they were to be written. Parallels and literary tropes were expected, as the goal was instruction, as much or more than merely giving information.
Jewish writers like Josephus or Philo were cut from the same cloth during the period.
Again, they or their intended audience might have been Hellenistai, so had been substantially Hellenised during the preceding 300 or so years. Even the Hasmonaean state was heavily influenced thereby.

It does not lose credibility because it is susceptible to the same literary culture of the period's secular histories. If you doubt the Gospels on this account, then you should be doubting all the ancient historians. Such radical scepticism leaves us unable to say much at all, which was my point as to the trustworthiness of the Gospels in general.

I have read Josephus Antiquities of the Jews and Thucydides account of the Peloponnesian War. These were both helpful and instructive and if you are suggesting the synoptics and Acts were in this genre i can see what you mean, although the theological dimension, accounts of miracles and large circle of confirming and affirming witnesses probably make the gospels more authoritative and slightly different in tone. But Johns gospel seems quite different to these accounts to me.

I think there is a semantic difference between posters here, of what is meant by an 'eyewitness account'. One could argue Matthew and John as eyewitnesses; but Luke explicitly says he based his account off of eyewitnesses, and Mark is presumed to be Peter's account, so the latter two are thus second hand accounts of eyewitnesses, not such accounts themselves.

If Luke directly interviewed Mary and Mark was in direct contact with Peter and both were accountable to the remaining apostles for the other eyewitness accounts they collected I do not see this as undermining the authenticity of the witness. A detective would also be happy being able to form his appraisal of events from direct first hand testimony.

 

[mindlight]

Who witnessed to the thousands who heard the apostles speak?

I do not understand the question but an example is Peters sermon at Pentecost after which more than 3000 people were added to the church

 

[Barney2.0]

Not true.

True:
https://clearlens.org/are-the-four-gospels-anonymous/

Are the Gospels Anonymous? - Christian Worldview Press

 

[ananda]

I do not understand the question but an example is Peters sermon at Pentecost after which more than 3000 people were added to the church

Well, let's first take these as a given:

• The ministry of Jesus was witnessed by his apostles, and
• The ministries of Jesus' apostles were witnessed by the thousands who heard them speak.

Who then, witnessed the witnesses of the thousands who heard the apostles speak?
Who witnessed those witnesses, in turn?

 

[HitchSlap]

True:
Are the Four Gospels Anonymous? - A Clear Lens

Lol

Second sentence, second paragraph.

 

[Barney2.0]

Lol

Second sentence, second paragraph.

In other words, when the Gospel of Matthew was originally written, the document didn’t say “The Gospel According to Matthew” like it does in our English Bibles. This would be different compared to most of the epistles in the New Testament, which contain the name of the author. So in this sense, the four gospels were probably anonymous when they were first written.

With that said, there is no evidence that the four gospels ever circulated without their titles. But if the four gospels were originally anonymous, how and when did the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John become attached to their respective gospels? What do we make of this?

You didn’t finish reading, if you continue it disapproves the allegations of the Gospels being anonymous.

 

[HitchSlap]

In other words, when the Gospel of Matthew was originally written, the document didn’t say “The Gospel According to Matthew” like it does in our English Bibles. This would be different compared to most of the epistles in the New Testament, which contain the name of the author. So in this sense, the four gospels were probably anonymous when they were first written.

With that said, there is no evidence that the four gospels ever circulated without their titles. But if the four gospels were originally anonymous, how and when did the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John become attached to their respective gospels? What do we make of this?

You didn’t finish reading, if you continue it disapproves the allegations of the Gospels being anonymous.

The gospels were never signed by their authors and the earliest copied manuscripts never had titles. They were given the titles several centuries later by early church leaders. This is not even debated by scholars.

 

[mindlight]

Well, let's first take these as a given:

• The ministry of Jesus was witnessed by his apostles, and
• The ministries of Jesus' apostles were witnessed by the thousands who heard them speak.

Who then, witnessed the witnesses of the thousands who heard the apostles speak?
Who witnessed those witnesses, in turn?

The biblical evidence is that the whole of Jerusalem did. The church continued to grow but some hardened their hearts against it much as they do today. Non Christians like Josephus bear witness to the growth of the church and to key characters like James for instance. Roman figures like Tacitus also become aware of it quite early on.

 

[HitchSlap]

The biblical evidence is that the whole of Jerusalem did. The church continued to grow but some hardened their hearts against it much as they do today. Non Christians like Josephus bear witness to the growth of the church and to key characters like James for instance. Roman figures like Tacitus also become aware of it quite early on.

There is zero contemporary accounts of Jesus' life. Josephus' account is widely accepted as interpolation by a zealous scribe centuries later, and Tacitus' account is written decades after the death of Jesus. If Jesus had made half the impact you suggest on society, there should be hundreds of accounts of his existence... but there's not.

 

[ananda]

The biblical evidence is that the whole of Jerusalem did. The church continued to grow but some hardened their hearts against it much as they do today. Non Christians like Josephus bear witness to the growth of the church and to key characters like James for instance. Roman figures like Tacitus also become aware of it quite early on.

Does that give you confidence that the gospels were true eyewitness accounts?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Who was the witness to the prayers in the garden of Gethsemane? All the apostles were sleeping.

You know how everything in London is "on camera" all the time ? (Famous worldwide exposure)

Who is more Faithful and True ? Who is at the highest peak of the highest mountain?

Who is at the bottom of the deepest ocean ?

Who can no one escape from, no matter where they go or run to hide ?

Who knows all things perfectly!