The Gospels Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter YosefYosep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the helpful information from both of you. Especially for the clarification on the gospels’ dating too, Patrick. I have another question though…

If most of the gospels were written down 40 to 50 years after the death of Christ, would this be a possible time frame for the “myth” to develop. My friend still holds the view that Christ’s miracles (especially the resurrection) were legendary exaggerations developed between the death of Christ and the writing of the gospels. Of course there was an orally transmitted gospel before the written ones, but my friend believes that the oral gospels were simply inspirational stories of a wise teacher who died. It wasn’t until “renegade” Christian disciples decided to turn the historical and factual story of Jesus into one of legend and myth.

One rebuttal that I think I could use is why would the majority of the apostles along with thousands of other early Christians suffer persecution, disembowelment, stoning, hanging, and crucifixion for a mere “inspirational story?” I mean I find Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates inspirational, wise, and (for the most part) morally righteous teachers but I don’t think I would go to my death in their names.
Just like the Cathars who were willing to be face the pyres at the hands of the established church int 11th-13th cwnturies? They were willing to al face extermination by the thousands rather than give up their beliefs. Or the Lollards , or the Hussitea, or the Anabaptists who suffered at the hands of both the Catholic Church and the Reformed churches?

How about the Huguenots? They face brutal and inhumane treatment from the Catholics in France…did that prove the truth of their beliefs?

Or the Mormons who by.the thousands refused to give up their bielief in the Book of Mormon and were driven from state to state, suffer burnings, beatings, tar and featherings, some hangings and shootings rather than give up their faith. Dying for a belief does not prove its truth, it only proves people are willing to face hardship Nd death for something they believe in.

That the early Christians most of whom never saw or heard an apostle speak let alone met one were willing to die for their new found faith proves nothing of its truth…only that good and sometimes fanatical people at that are willing to suffer for an ideal that has captured their hearts.

The Sufis Nd the Baha’is can provide similar stories of horror and death heaped upon them…are you saying “That proves the truth of their faith!”

🤷
 
Is it even possible that a legend so profound as the resurrection could arise in a 40 to 50 year period?
Of course it could, the golden plates that Joseph Smith found and translated drew thousands of converts in a short span of less than a decade… Willing to suffer even for a hoax or an ideal isn’t much proof.
 
Is it even possible that a legend so profound as the resurrection could arise in a 40 to 50 year period?
1 Corinthians was written around 53 - 57AD. 1Cor 15:3-14 clearly states the eyewitnesses account of Jesus death and resurrection and appearances. Now could a myth arise in 25+ yr period with eyewitnesses still alive?

And note that Paul is saying “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain”. A major tenet of the faith is being declared, eye witnesses are still alive to confirm the facts. Myths don’t start when people knowledgeable about the facts are still around to refute any falsehoods.
 
Unfortunately, it’s not science doing that talking, it’s scientists. As John Lennox say’s *“Careful not to confuse scientific statements with statements by scientists.” *

Yes, this is what I wanted to say also and perhaps it might be beneficial to your friend.

Science deals with the laws of the material world.

Atheism says the material world is all there is.

It is the philosophy of atheism that then leads to the view that the only truths are scientific truths.

Science doesn’t say this.

Your friend has a view about science, not a scientific view.
 
Yes, I think it is. But still, as origin texts of a major religion go, the evidence for the NT is remarkably strong, including the evidence for the resurrection. Even the Jewish scholar Paula Fredriksen, who dismisses N. T. Wright’s arguments as apologetics rather than real scholarship, thinks that it’s clear that the earliest followers of Jesus really thought He had risen from the dead. And I think that raises a lot of questions for folks who don’t believe it really happened (like Fredriksen, presumably).

Edwin
I guess now it’s a matter of presenting solid evidence to show that Jesus’s early disciples believed they witnessed the resurrected Christ.
 
Just like the Cathars who were willing to be face the pyres at the hands of the established church int 11th-13th cwnturies? They were willing to al face extermination by the thousands rather than give up their beliefs. Or the Lollards , or the Hussitea, or the Anabaptists who suffered at the hands of both the Catholic Church and the Reformed churches?

How about the Huguenots? They face brutal and inhumane treatment from the Catholics in France…did that prove the truth of their beliefs?

Or the Mormons who by.the thousands refused to give up their bielief in the Book of Mormon and were driven from state to state, suffer burnings, beatings, tar and featherings, some hangings and shootings rather than give up their faith. Dying for a belief does not prove its truth, it only proves people are willing to face hardship Nd death for something they believe in.

That the early Christians most of whom never saw or heard an apostle speak let alone met one were willing to die for their new found faith proves nothing of its truth…only that good and sometimes fanatical people at that are willing to suffer for an ideal that has captured their hearts.

The Sufis Nd the Baha’is can provide similar stories of horror and death heaped upon them…are you saying “That proves the truth of their faith!”

🤷
No I wasn’t saying that their death proves their faith. I was simply saying that if Jesus was who my friend said he was, just a very wise teacher who didn’t claim any divine authority, who was crucified and thrown to the dogs, then why do we see a growing amount of Christian martyrs in the first couple centuries after his death? I’m just saying that Jesus must have claimed to be something more than just a wise Jewish teacher to strike up such a radical movement.
 
I guess now it’s a matter of presenting solid evidence to show that Jesus’s early disciples believed they witnessed the resurrected Christ.
Depends what you mean by solid. We have Paul writing probably in the 50s listing eyewitnesses, though he wasn’t one himself (except in a vision–and the fact that he does include himself does raise questions for some folks as to the nature of the appearance to the others), and we have Mark’s story of the empty tomb, which presupposes (but does not explicitly narrate, in what is probably its earliest form) an appearance narrative. This account was probably written in the 60s, or at the latest the 70s. We don’t have any evidence for an earliest Christianity that didn’t include the proclamation of the resurrection.

Edwin
 
No I wasn’t saying that their death proves their faith. I was simply saying that if Jesus was who my friend said he was, just a very wise teacher who didn’t claim any divine authority, who was crucified and thrown to the dogs, then why do we see a growing amount of Christian martyrs in the first couple centuries after his death? I’m just saying that Jesus must have claimed to be something more than just a wise Jewish teacher to strike up such a radical movement.
OR his followers came to believe things about him he himself never claimed. The gospels are not about what Jesus claimed about himself, but what his followers in later decades came to believe. There is a difference.
 
Publisher #28
his followers came to believe things about him he himself never claimed. The gospels are not about what Jesus claimed about himself, but what his followers in later decades came to believe.
False – it illustrates lack of scholarship as the result of slavishly following the erroneous assumptions of the historical-critical deconstructionists – disorder and confusion.

The documents of Scripture are historical. Further, historically, the documents of Scripture relate that the man Jesus claimed to be sent by God, claimed to be God, proved His claim by His miracles and His Resurrection, and established His Church on St Peter to continue His teaching until the end of time.

Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].

Not only are the facts of Jesus miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries, His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

The facts are that the 1964 Magisterial Instruction on the *Historical Truth of the Gospels *from the Pontifical Biblical Commission teaches concerning the Apostles:
“However there is no reason to deny the fact that the apostles, in telling their listeners about our Lord’s deeds and words, utilized the fuller understanding which they had acquired from the glorious events of Christ’s life14 and the guidance of, the Spirit of truth.15 After His resurrection Jesus Himself "interpreted to them"16 His own words and those of the Old Testament.17 In a similar manner they explained His deeds and words according to the needs of their audience.

“Devoting themselves, ‘to the ministry of the word,’18 they set about preaching, and utilized the type of presentation appropriate to their purpose and the mentality of their listeners. They were debtors19 to Greeks and to foreigners, to learned and unlearned."20 Indeed we can single out the following categories in the preaching of Christ’s heralds: catechetical formulas, narrative reports, eyewitness accounts, hymns, doxologies, prayers, and similar literary genres commonly found in Sacred Scripture and the speech of that period.” [My emphasis].
[See www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM]
 
False – it illustrates lack of scholarship as the result of slavishly following the erroneous assumptions of the historical-critical deconstructionists – disorder and confusion.

The documents of Scripture are historical. Further, historically, the documents of Scripture relate that the man Jesus claimed to be sent by God, claimed to be God, proved His claim by His miracles and His Resurrection, and established His Church on St Peter to continue His teaching until the end of time.

Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History
, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].

Not only are the facts of Jesus miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries, His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

The facts are that the 1964 Magisterial Instruction on the *Historical Truth of the Gospels *from the Pontifical Biblical Commission teaches concerning the Apostles:
“However there is no reason to deny the fact that the apostles, in telling their listeners about our Lord’s deeds and words, utilized the fuller understanding which they had acquired from the glorious events of Christ’s life14 and the guidance of, the Spirit of truth.15 After His resurrection Jesus Himself "interpreted to them"16 His own words and those of the Old Testament.17 In a similar manner they explained His deeds and words according to the needs of their audience.

“Devoting themselves, ‘to the ministry of the word,’18 they set about preaching, and utilized the type of presentation appropriate to their purpose and the mentality of their listeners. They were debtors19 to Greeks and to foreigners, to learned and unlearned."20 Indeed we can single out the following categories in the preaching of Christ’s heralds: catechetical formulas, narrative reports, eyewitness accounts, hymns, doxologies, prayers, and similar literary genres commonly found in Sacred Scripture and the speech of that period.” [My emphasis].
[See www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM]

I am really interested in historically proving the resurrection, Jesus’s divinity, and discovering what the first generation Christians believed about Christ. Any good books to satisfy my craving?
 
OR his followers came to believe things about him he himself never claimed. The gospels are not about what Jesus claimed about himself, but what his followers in later decades came to believe. There is a difference.
What do you think is a good argument for Christ’s divinity?
 
I am really interested in historically proving the resurrection, Jesus’s divinity, and discovering what the first generation Christians believed about Christ. Any good books to satisfy my craving?
Anything by N. T. Wright–The Challenge of Jesus is the most accessible statement of his views, but he has a much more in-depth trilogy as well.

Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eye-Witnesses.

Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ argues that Christians worshiped Jesus from the very beginning, but I haven’t read it.

Edwin
 
Anything by N. T. Wright–The Challenge of Jesus is the most accessible statement of his views, but he has a much more in-depth trilogy as well.

Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eye-Witnesses.

Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ argues that Christians worshiped Jesus from the very beginning, but I haven’t read it.

Edwin
Thanks I am going to order one of N.T. Wright’s books right now.
 
Thanks for the helpful information from both of you. Especially for the clarification on the gospels’ dating too, Patrick. I have another question though…

If most of the gospels were written down 40 to 50 years after the death of Christ, would this be a possible time frame for the “myth” to develop. My friend still holds the view that Christ’s miracles (especially the resurrection) were legendary exaggerations developed between the death of Christ and the writing of the gospels. Of course there was an orally transmitted gospel before the written ones, but my friend believes that the oral gospels were simply inspirational stories of a wise teacher who died. It wasn’t until “renegade” Christian disciples decided to turn the historical and factual story of Jesus into one of legend and myth.

One rebuttal that I think I could use is why would the majority of the apostles along with thousands of other early Christians suffer persecution, disembowelment, stoning, hanging, and crucifixion for a mere “inspirational story?” I mean I find Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates inspirational, wise, and (for the most part) morally righteous teachers but I don’t think I would go to my death in their names.
This is a helpful lecture that dates an early resurrection creed to within a year or two of the actual event.

youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M
 
OR his followers came to believe things about him he himself never claimed. **The gospels are not about what Jesus claimed about himself, but what his followers in later decades came to believe. ** There is a difference.
As Catholics, we believe the Gospels accurately and inerrantly reflect what Jesus revealed about himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top