• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Featured The Historicity of the Gospels

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Tree of Life, Mar 15, 2016.

  1. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,253
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Ok, understand no one is questioning Galatians or at least six other NT books were written by Paul. Galatians being a very early book. Stories didn't exactly flourish in the early decades following the ascension of Christ because the Apostles, who were eye witnesses, were with them. John Mark wrote the Gospel according to Mark under the supervision of Peter in Rome, think what you like but that's what Christian scholarship has maintained for 2,000 years.

    A lot of Christian scholars have seriously questions the last verses of John Mark's Gospel for very good reason, it's simply unlike the rest of the book. It probably originally ended with 'and they were all in fear', you have to understand the purpose of the book in the first place. They knew about the resurrection but the details of Jesus earthly ministry were sketchy at best, unless you had access to the Apostles of course. John Mark is kind of filling in the blanks and the church took great pains to preserve that testimony being so closely associated with the Apostles.

    Speculation and controversy abounds regarding the ending, what is it doing in there is the biggest question, not so much does it belong. It was one of the earlier books and perhaps the ending from the original was recreated or maybe some well meaning scribe tried to piece together the ending he remembered, that is lost to history. There are some questions regarding parts of John's Gospel, like the woman caught in adultery. But the book itself has been the subject of virtually no controversy until modern times and the vast majority of that is from modern secular scholars.

    You might want to consider this if your taking the subject matter seriously:

    Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer." (Testimony of the Evangelists 1846 by Simon Greenleaf)​
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2018
  2. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +472
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    True. Maybe I should adopt your rationale...

    The Catholics are the only ones whom wrote about such events. They already believe in people raising from the dead. They then spoke about people raising from the dead in their writings. No one else wrote anything. The Catholics were very smart. Therefore, it is ALL true ;)
     
  3. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +472
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Growing legendary embellishment, written from an extremely bias perspective. Nuff said :)
     
  4. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,253
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Catholicism didn't come around until hundreds of years after the canon was already well established among believers. They did work tirelessly to preserve the canon after they arrived but Apostolic authority was never dependent on them, even though they claim it rests with them, it predates that institution by hundreds of years.
     
  5. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,253
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    The strange case of the incredibly shrinking argument, reduced to...well...that light hearted jest. Not a credible or persuasive line of reasoning.
     
  6. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +472
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    My point was entirely missed.
     
  7. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,253
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    No, I understood your point, I just disagree with it.
     
  8. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +472
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I actually just summed up the entire conclusion in a very pretty little tiny package.
     
  9. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +472
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Fair enough
     
  10. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,253
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Well I'll just leave you with my opinion, the conclusion is ill founded but we are all entitled to our opinions, just not our own facts.

    Thanks for the exchange.
     
  11. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +472
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Good night :)
     
  12. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,253
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  13. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +31,556
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    That’s a narrative you created which confirmed my assessments.
     
  14. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +1,837
    Humanist
    Understood.

    You are responding to a post that I addressed to someone else, not to you. In my post I was addressing someone who claimed that hundreds of thousands of manuscripts from the Middle Ages proved the documents. I actually agree with you that the best evidence is the few documents we have from the early centuries, not the many we have from the Middle Ages.
     
  15. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +1,837
    Humanist
    Interesting list. Thanks.

    Does any of this prove the gospels were widely known in the end of the first century? I think not.

    Your 3 sources are Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius. None of these give a clear recognition of the four gospels as we know them. The quotes from Paul and other epistles are irrelevant to the recognition of the four gospels. The few quotes of sayings are not specifically said to be from the gospels. Similar sayings are found in Thomas, James, and Q if it existed. Also they could come from word of mouth or other sources. The fact that people were attributing a range of sayings to Jesus is not in question. Whether they recognized the four gospels as accurately portraying history is in question.

    Regarding the timing of these sources, Polycarp is definitely second century, probably near the end of your range, so he doesn't apply. The dating of the first epistle of Clement is controversial, but probably near 140 AD. Even if around 97 AD, as you state, it is hardly evidence of what is happening in the period between the apostles and the later church. Ignatius is probably from that period, but there are questions about what is authentically from him. None of them specifically reference a story written in one of the gospels as being historical. Not until the third century does that become common.
     
  16. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,669
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Have you read the writings of Josephus, the Roman Historian, and what he wrote about Jesus and The apostles from a historical perspective?
     
  17. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +472
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    LOL. Your contention is that prior to a few centuries ago, the only ones whom wrote of historical events were Catholic in origin. Okay, if this is true, we have then confirmed that only people whom believe that many people, (like Matthew 27:52-53), rose from the dead, and that the resurrection is 'just plain fact'; by way of prior hearsay, and not instead from first-hand eyewitness testimony, which was reported from none other then biased individuals, whom already believed in such as their only source(s).

    In conclusion, we appear to have quite the contrary. It is you whom have confirmed my initial assessment regarding the evaluation of historicity - contemporary or from antiquity (i.e.):

    Are such events acknowledged as possibly fallible? no
    Are events removed from being written from religious or political bias or agenda? no
    Are such claimed eyewitness events narrated from first hand accounts? no
    Are such records plausible under the laws of physics? no
    Have the records been reliably preserved? no

    *****************

    Your repeated response is that I must then discount ANY history prior to recent reported events. My response is an emphatic no. As I already stated, even if what you state is true regarding the Catholic's writing and reporting of events, it is one thing to investigate or correlate a said physical event in claimed history. However, if any claim in history hinged upon direct eyewitness testimony; meaning, the necessity of independent firsthand accounts of a witnessed one time event, (like seeing a miracle for instance), it would be nice if the ones reporting as such are not ONLY from the biased individuals whom already have predetermined that such miracles are 'true'. No, it instead warrants further corroboration from writers in history whom are not emotionally invested in the claim to substantiate their beliefs.


    And if we do not have this, then there you go. biased claims, supported by biased predetermined beliefs, substantiated and concluded by the monopoly of the ones whom reported as such.

    So again, it must all be true, because they were the only ones to report it ;)
     
  18. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +472
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Yes I have. He reported what some people believed.

    Historians have also concluded that the 'golden paragraph' was a later addition, or possible forgery. Why? The 'golden paragraph' was demonstrated to not appear until centuries after the original publication, demonstrating additions made by a later re-copiest. The piece was merely reports of what others claimed, and is nothing more than reporting what other people believed. When one looks at the 'golden paragraph', it's literary style looks to not match any of the other text within the same book, further eluding to an addition made later by another writer.
     
  19. Goonie

    Goonie Not so Mystic Mog. Supporter

    +6,577
    United Kingdom
    Atheist
    Single
    The problem with Josephus is that there is good reason to believe that the text has been added to.

    About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

    - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

    It is a passage that flies in the face of everything else he wrote, from style, to the fact that it is written from what appears to be a Christian perspective. It is more than likely later Christian scribes added to, if not inventing the whole passage, to the original text.
     
  20. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +472
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Exactly!

    But even if it wasn't. Who cares really regardless... Josephus was a man, born after Jesus' claimed death, whom reported what some people believed.

    It is quite comical that anyone attempting to argue their position would even attempt to use such an example. Such writings no further substantiate, validate, or attest the claims of a contemporaneous eyewitness regardless.
     
Loading...