F
Faith1960
Guest
How do you know that the Gospels, Acts, etc. are facts and not stories passed down from one person to another?
- Status
C
catholictiger
Guest
first there are alot of people who weren’t Christians during the Time of Christ, who talked about Christ even though as I said they didn’t believe in him. This is probably the best evidence for this being fact and not some story passed down.
Also look at the shroud of turin I know it hasn’t been proven to be Christ but I mean how could it not be Christ. To my knowledge only modern Technology can recreate what happened on that shroud or can explain why this image got on this shroud. Plus when you look at the Shroud you notice the marks on this body mirror the story of the Gospels. holes in hands and feet. lots of marks on back and such. I think you can tell it by blood stains on the shroud.
when you look at it you can see these stains on forehead probably from crown of thorns.
one womb at wrist probably were he was pierced other wrist is covered by hand. Feet can’t be seen.
These two things make a strong claim for the gospels being fact not story handed down.
T
thistle
Guest
You should not bring the Shroud into this discussion. The Church has not declared it to be authentic and you are wrong saying that only modern technology can recreate what happened. It has been clearly recreated using ONLY technology available from the Middle Ages and before. The image on the Shroud was made using a camera obscura.
However, discussion on this has nothing to do with the OP’s question so we should not sidetrack his thread. The Shroud is evidence of nothing.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Thanks, but I’m a her.
G
Gem
Guest
The Early Church Fathers. People didn’t die willingly in Roman circuses for stories.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
Yes, some of them were.[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:16[/BIBLEDRB]
C
catholictiger
Guest
if the Shroud is the Shroud of Christ then It seems like amazing evidence.
don’t want to pull it off topic so ill stop here
F
Faith1960
Guest
Anyone else?
C
catholictiger
Guest
i think one of the best evidences for Christ is the people who didn’t follow him writing about him.
Josephus
Cornelius Tacitus
Pliny the Younger,
there could be more but these are the big ones
N
NHInsider
Guest
The way you phrase the question makes it sound as though “stories passed down from one person to another” must not be “facts.” But the reality of the ancient world is oral tradition, which is to say, “stories passed down from one person to another” is the way “facts” were recorded and transmitted. This is true in cultures across the ancient world, not only in the Judeo-Christian record.
The NT “stories” began with the eyewitnesses. Most were probably recorded by the second “generation” - those who heard from the eyewitnesses, although we don’t have any original manuscripts. But there was also some overlap, which serves, in a way, as a vetting or cross-checking process: most notably, John who did not hesitate to condemn heretical positions in his Epistles did not, apparently, challenge the Gospels which circulated during his lifetime.
Having said all of that, I believe the Scriptures we have are accurate because they were affirmed by the Church, and I believe that the Lord promised to lead the Church in teaching Truth. Which is to say the Church came first, and promulgated the Bible, not the other way around.
From a historical perspective, I would still point out that the bishops of the 4th century had more access to material and a closer understanding of the culture around the writers than the scholars of the 20th century did, so that if it comes down to a “who do you believe?” argument I’m going to go with those who are closer to the originals . . .I am super-skeptical of people who think they “know better” just because they are “modern,” whether they are critiquing first and second century Christian documents or 9th century Anglo-saxon chronicles or nineteenth-century pioneer journals . . . the hubris of the “scholar” is well-documented.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I ws reading through some of my NAB Study Bible and it says that “Among modern scholars, there is a wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work.” It says basically the same thing in 1 Peter. The Introduction to the Gospel of John also suggests this is not “eyewitness authorship.”
In the Reading Guide it says “The author may have been a disciple of the Apostle John but almost certainly wasn not the Apostle himself, though that had been the belief from the second century on.”
IF this is true, who ARE these eyewitnesses?
In the Reading Guide it says “The author may have been a disciple of the Apostle John but almost certainly wasn not the Apostle himself, though that had been the belief from the second century on.”
IF this is true, who ARE these eyewitnesses?
F
Faith1960
Guest
Sorry NHI, I wrote that before I read your post.
N
NHInsider
Guest
Happens surprisingly often! Wonders of cyberspace!Sorry NHI, I wrote that before I read your post.
I think it is reasonable to assume that most of the first-century written material was what we in the modern era would call “as told to” - in an era when writing was a specialized skill, it is unlikely that the fishermen Jesus called as disciples would have written their recollections. But for an era when oral transmission was the norm, it is presumptuous and anachronistic to suggest (as some “scholars” do) that a second-or-third generation recording is “unreliable.”
The chroniclers of the ancient world had, frankly, better memories and higher standards of accuracy than we, who have the luxury of print, are accustomed to
It is ironic that while anthropologists are happy to record and reference the oral traditions of Stone-Age peoples from South America and Southeast Asia, some modern Biblical scholars will dismiss biblical accounts based on similar records.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Would you like to answer my OP? I’d like to hear your opinion.
T
thistle
Guest
Sorry. Please forgive me.Thanks, but I’m a her.
F
Faith1960
Guest
No problem.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I’ve read a lot about the Douay Rheims bible. What does it say, if anything, about the authorship of the Gospels?
N
NHInsider
Guest
D-R is a translation. As such the text does not say anything about the authors of the Gospels any more than any other translation.
The position of the Church is that the names traditionally assigned to the Gospels are those of their “authors” and I don’t dispute that. That would make Luke the writer of Luke, and that’s perfectly possible as he would probably have been able to write, although even at that he would more likely have used a scribe - but he was not an eyewitness as he says in his opening, he was a researcher/compiler. Early documents recorded that Mark wrote his gospel based on what he had heard from Peter and with Peter’s approval. Peter, obviously, was an eyewitness, Mark was just a teenager at the time of the crucifixion who went on to be an assistant to both Paul (with whom he had a falling-out) and then Peter. So even in the traditional attribution, he was not an eyewitness to most of what he recorded. That leaves John and Matthew. As a taxpayer, Matthew may have had scribal skills, as a fisherman, John almost certainly did not. But even if the words were actually committed to parchment by someone who had heard Matthew or John, that doesn’t mean they aren’t the “authors” in the ancient world.
My point, however, would be that even if the accounts weren’t put into writing until the next generation, that doesn’t mean they weren’t true.
- Status