Yes, I think that’s my view. By and large, I don’t think God preserved the Gospels in Scripture for their history, although they definitely do contain good history in many places and contain theology of Christians others. I think the main purpose of the Gospels is to show how followers of Jesus in the early church saw him and related to Him, showing their praise, and their doubts, and their questions, and their anger, and their requests, and their reverence. Not to give us an inerrant portrait of his ministry. The Gospels are deeply emotional, deeply personal as well as communal, and deeply spiritual portraits of Jesus blending fact with fiction, history with theology.
I am having a little fun yes, but I think its clear that this type of reasoning and genre and purpose considerations can be extended to every Biblical book just as easily. Luke’s prologue doesn’t get around this either.
You have to do better than that. One, I reject the divide and conquer technique. Two, I reject that being able to come up with any explanation suffices. Both sides share a burden of proof in every debate. Third, ff you think the lack of “I am” statements can be waved away by claiming the synoptic authors felt no need to include Jesus’ statements where he directly and obviously claims to be God/one with the father–the most scandalous thing he could do in monotheistic Judaism, you don’t really understand the gravity of the differences between John and the Synoptics. I outlined many of them here:
If I conflate different disciplines into one big one in error, I confess I struggle to organize all the various takes on those things which demonstrate the NT is filled with over 400,000 errors, forgeries galore, hardly any historically reliable data, authored by imposters describing Someone who never lived, or who lived but was not God’s Son, or He was only God’s Son part time, with the goal of to convincing folks of ridiculous ideas promoted in barbaric, backwards, bronze age eras, dominated by nomadic sheep herders in which not a single early follower of Somebody (we can’t give him a name because we don’t know anything about him, really) could read or write.
Ehtman”s Statement: The New Testament Gospels Are Historically Unreliable Accounts of Jesus
"Let me say here at the outset that I consider the Gospels of the New Testament to be four of the most beautiful, powerful, moving, and inspiring books ever written. I love the Gospels. Their stories of Jesus’s words and deeds have always been and always will be near and dear to me. Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life, and I encourage others to do likewise. For me they are the most important books in our civilization and for my own life.
I want to stress this point because it is important to know that these are not the idiosyncratic ideas of some radical liberal professor with crazy ideas. These are the views shared by critical scholars around the country (and in Europe) who have devoted their lives to studying such things."
Ehrman loves the NT which desribes God’s Son, the One who is responsible for murdering millions of babies, advocating rape, slavery, misogyny and more.
Sorry about that. I put quotes in now. I don’t know how to do what you’ve suggested. I am a dinosaur.
My point is this: Presently, there are so many groups attempting to shred the NT into pieces, I can’t keep up with all of them. So, I combined a few of their varied criticisms to point out how unrecognisable Christianity has become to some.
Forgive me, sincerely, when I say it has become good sport to attack Christ, the NT and Christians. That’s my firmly held opinion. I do not accuse anyone in particular. At the same time, I appreciate that a deluge of flaws are making it into the public discourse. It generates curiosity about Christ and whether He is “preached” in vain or not, some may be motivated to find rest in him. Also, imho, these flaws will turn out to be misunderstandings, just good old wrong, improperly understood, etc.
Ehrman loves the NT which desribes God’s Son, the One who is responsible for murdering millions of babies, advocating rape, slavery, misogyny and more.
The Bible describes a GOD, according to some, who is guilty of those and other atrocities, yet Ehrman, one of the most honored critics, says he loves the NT. It is fair to say that fundamentalists are not the only ones who have reverence for that which appears to advocate evil.
Yeah, sometimes that’s true. Like, I’d bet the majority of critical scholars rule out miracles like walking on water and feeding the five thousand simply because they’re miracles. But there are other cases where the conclusions of higher critics have nothing to do with the supernatural. Like, was 1 Timothy written by Paul or by some pseudonymous author? Most evangelical scholars think it was by Paul, most higher critics think it was by someone else, but there’s no miracle involved either way. The claim has to be evaluated on its own terms.
It means that the Gospel of Matthew wasn’t really written by a disciple of Jesus, and so wasn’t written by a first-hand eyewitness. That means that on historical-critical grounds it’s not a primary source and so it’s potentially less reliable, although it could theoretically still be completely accurate.
I also mentioned perfectly just. He’s also personal, a servant, a teacher, the Creator of the universe. I still don’t think it explains the issues I brought up in my post to Paul_Allen.
I mean, there’s a couple reasons to suspect it was contrived:
The story of the flight to Egypt and the death of the children of Bethlehem is not found in Mark, Luke, or John. You’d think that Luke, the careful historian who wrote extensively about the birth of Christ, would mention something as significant as hiding in Egypt for several years.
It’s also not found in any other texts from the time.
There are obvious parallels to the story of Moses. Both figures came “out of Egypt,” both barely escaped being killed by a deadly king who killed all the other young children in the area, both were told that “those who seek your life are now dead.”
I think the author of the book of Matthew was trying to show that Jesus was like a new Moses. The leader of a new kind of Exodus, the giver of new laws and teaching, etc. And so maybe he made up these events in the birth story to poetically get his point across. It’s not proof, obviously, but it’s at least suspicious.
To quote someone else on the thread, select the text you want to quote and hit the gray quote button that appears when text is highlighted. It will pull the text into your open post dialog box.
To set text off as a quote box
like this
Put a > symbol in front of the first line of a paragraph.
Because in that framework we could say God is just letting us know that Luke considers his work trustworthy, not that it is. And we know that Luke, at least in the Gospel is pretty much plagiarizing Mark and Q. He wants us to know his spin on things is accurate and trustworthy. I’m sure the author of Mark thought the same as did the author of Matthew and John—prologue or not. In fact, given Lucan dependence on Mark, one can’t help to wonder if there isn’t a subtle critique there. Though this has to be tempered by the fact that he uses significant parts of Mark’s Gospel.
In the end once we start claiming genre for Psalms, the Pentateuch and various other books, there is no escaping that the Gospels and New Testament fit into this paradigm as well.
Joseph takes the child away as Herod sought to destroy him. Moses also went away as the Pharaoh sought to kill him (Matt 2:13-14 and Exod 2:15).
Herod massacred all the boys two and under in Bethlehem and the Pharaoh had every male boy be cast into the Nile.
Both Kings died (Matt 2:19; Exod 2:23).
Moses is told to return to Egypt by God and an Angel tells Joseph to go back to the Land of Israel. Both were told those seeking him are dead (Matt 2:19-20, Exod 4:19).
Both Joseph and Moses take their wife and offspring back to the destinated commanded of them ( Matt 2:21 and Exodus 4:20).
Not to mention the historical tragedy of “Out of Egypt I called my son” as a prophecy.
Not one bit. He wrote what He wrote to contribute to spreading the gospel based on the reliable information he had. That’s all. It is easier to interpret his motives by accepting he was being truthful and sharing from the bottom of his heart those things which had just taken place. There was no reason for him to make up nonsense that could and would cost those guys everything.
If I was in his shoes, I’d take the next boat as far away as I could get rather than risk my life for a fairy tale that I made up.
Nah. Why bother? That boy had his hands full trying to write down everything else his research yielded. So, someone considered that worth while to include? Big deal, you know? There were a million things to choose from, right? Why would he give a rip what others wrote or didn’t write? Who knows what went through their minds as they considered what to write? They were unique individuals.
Who cares? They wrote what they wanted to write.
Big deal, respectfully. Didn’t those boys realize their brethren were being burned alive, upside down, to serve as candles at night by Nero for sticking to their guns? Why make up stuff that could put your life in jeopardy, cause you to be tossed from the synagogue, ostracized by the entire community, embarrassed before your family, harm your chances of making a decent living, for what? Who would do that? Not normal, every day, hard working, devout Jewish men in the prime of their lives especially in a Jewish community.
What about the thing I said earlier that the Book of Matthew might not actually have been written by Matthew, the disciple of Jesus? For all we know this could have been written by some anonymous Christian who was in no real danger.
Even if it really was written by Matthew, the disciple of Jesus, I’m not saying he made up the whole thing as a fairy tale. He still believed in Jesus and died witnessing about his death and resurrection, he just took artistic writing with his text to get across a larger point. He really did believe that Jesus was a new teacher greater than Moses, but maybe he communicated that belief through an invented story.
Why, if you had just hung out with God for 2 to 3 years and observed him perform a zillion miracles, would you even consider for a split second that you’d have to embellish your written account of His life? Like you really didn’t have very much out-of -sight material to blow the socks off your readers?
No real danger as a disciple back in the day? They were being picked off as fast as you could say hungry lions. And many of them were Jews, God’s chosen.
Here’s another possibility. Jesus was God in the flesh. He said and did the things just as they are described in the NT. People were utterly astonished by the guy. They couldn’t believe God Himself was walking and talking right before their very eyes. They were stunned. In awe. Shocked. Beside themselves. GODMAN, Jesus Christ, putting on a show like no one else before or since has dreamed of–and they touched him, and heard him and watched him 24/7 for years and He was GOD. GOD. What if they were just so thrilled that they wrote down the true facts of his life on earth? That lying would have been grievous to them. That misrepresenting anything would be offensive to them, born out of their love and devotion to this One who changed them utterly.
All this stuff is pretty hypothetical until your neighbor’s son kills himself with no warning, no hint something is wrong. Join me, please. Dear God, surround Jay and Petra with yourself, with your loving presence.
Would you be able to make up bologna with the way you feel about Jesus? You know what’s odd? We can say maybe that Christian did such and such. But when asked if we could that, of course our honest answer is no way.
Let’s just say I know of at least one evangelist that could.
An honest Christian yes, but who ever said all of the authors of the NT were as honest?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
63
Anybody mentioned the fact that the Church was up and thriving throughout the eastern Roman empire and beyond for decades before any gospel truth was written?
Have you taken a good look at them? I would say that they were much like us. When Christ became real to them, when they were convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt Who He was, I’m sure they were still knuckleheads, but they were repentant knuckleheads. To me, it is very obvious how much He meant to them. Not to all of them, but to enough of them that I am confident if any one was playing hanky-panky with their message about their King, they would have straightened it out in a hurry.
Don’t you sense their love for Him? Their brokenness when He died? Their joy unspeakable when He rose from the grave? Can’t you become one with them as this incredible story unfolds before their very eyes? I mean, we know what’s going to happen, but they don’t and I can sense what they are going through just like I am in their midst. I relive it every time I read it. The impossible took place. Look at Mary’s reaction. That is the most real scene I’ve ever seen. Can’t we go by our gut anymore. No one made up or embellished the recording we have of him. All the writers do is focus on him, him, him. These books/letters are not about them. In every sentence practically they refer to Jesus and to glorifying him, sacrificing for him, reaching others for him.
They are the most real band of boobs ever. No pretenses. No guile. No nothing, just the real life circumstances and their their lives unfolding in response to the greatest, most beautiful and mysterious thing ever to happen on the face of the earth.
