Answering the Historical Jesus and Jesus Mythicist crowd
#11
(03-05-2018, 11:10 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Right. When it comes to the Gospels we know that they were written by the the Apostles or their immediate followers. However, their intended audiences were certainly not the same. They were written for different people of different cultures and preexisting beliefs. That's why certain things were stressed out expanded on in each of the different Gospels.
Peace.....yes, I understand your reasoning.  We can also emphasize more or less on what we like or dont like personally, so the story builds all around that point.  One has to be a very good reader to read between the lines and a very good listener to hear the TRUTH.  (It is a grace to know the difference - My sheep know my voice - in other words!)  When I was young at school, it was my chore to give the weather report for the day and I always emphasized sunny with a bright cheery face and posture and then rainy days with a sad face and downish posture - finally the teacher told me not to do that - and I think this is why - because I gave the impression of what I personally liked and didnt like in the weather.....haha!!  I was only about 10 yrs old...angeltime
Reply
#12
(03-05-2018, 11:16 PM)angeltime Wrote:
(03-05-2018, 11:10 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Right. When it comes to the Gospels we know that they were written by the the Apostles or their immediate followers. However, their intended audiences were certainly not the same. They were written for different people of different cultures and preexisting beliefs. That's why certain things were stressed out expanded on in each of the different Gospels.
Peace.....yes, I understand your reasoning.  We can also emphasize more or less on what we like or dont like personally, so the story builds all around that point.  One has to be a very good reader to read between the lines and a very good listener to hear the TRUTH.  (It is a grace to know the difference - My sheep know my voice - in other words!)  When I was young at school, it was my chore to give the weather report for the day and I always emphasized sunny with a bright cheery face and posture and then rainy days with a sad face and downish posture - finally the teacher told me not to do that - and I think this is why - because I gave the impression of what I personally liked and didnt like in the weather.....haha!!  I was only about 10 yrs old...angeltime

There's another aspect of the differences in the Gospels too, especially when it comes to John.  I really really like the history of John and his writings.  John had a very special relationship with the Lord.  It appears that to John, Jesus imparted knowledge, or made him to understand things that no one else grasped at the time.  John had this very well developed theology and unique way of explaining who Jesus was.  This made the Gospel seem more sophisticated, and therefore scholars assumed it had to come later in time.  But again, the latest research shows this isn't true.  

Instead, what is clear is that John had insights that he treasured and taught to others, and eventually it became absorbed into the broader Christian community.  This wasn't schismatic or anything like that.  It was just John treasuring a particularly deep understanding of the Lord.  His own understanding based on grace and his closeness to Christ.  The reason that the Johannine group wasn't schismatic is evident in John's Gospel.  It's clear that Jesus treasures his relationship with John, but even then, John asserts Peter's primacy ("Feed my sheep" etc).  It would be the easiest thing in the world for John to say that because he was the beloved disciple, he was the Big Man on Campus; instead he deferred to Peter.  

I guess my point is just that John wasn't simply writing a Gospel for a different audience.  He was revealing a unique insight into Jesus based on his privileged relationship with Jesus, and that's why his Gospel is different.
Reply
#13
An article written by a protestant, but still very good.

Quote:The most popular theory today against the Bible is that the gospels are a bunch of myths and legends. As the theory goes, Jesus was a great guy with some commendable teachings, but the stories we have about him in the four gospels are made-up legends intended to beef up Christianity’s claims.

Entire books have been written on this (and much of the below grows out of Tim Keller’s Reason for God , but here are 4 brief reasons the gospels simply could not be fabricated legends:

1. The timing of the writing is too early for gospels to be a legend.
The books of the Bible were written around 30 years after the death of Jesus, with some of the main ones being as early as 20 years after. The latest book in the New Testament—Revelation—was still written only 50–60 years after Jesus’ death. That is just too quick for a full-blown myth to spring up and displace the true story.

People often respond by saying, “Well, maybe parts of the New Testament were written in the first century, but it was different than it is now. The divinity of Jesus and the resurrection were later additions.” The problem here is that the earliest records of Christianity all contain the resurrection teaching. So in 1 Corinthians (written around 54 A.D.), Paul quotes a hymn about Jesus’ death and resurrection. Less than one generation from Jesus’ death, and there are songs circulating popular enough for Paul to reference in one of his letters—songs about the resurrection.

Or think about the fact that the earliest Christians celebrated communion—not as a way of mourning their leader’s death, but as a celebration of victory. You don’t do that if you know that your leader was cut down in his prime. No, these Christians all firmly believed, from Day One, that Jesus really had raised from the dead.

2. The content is far too counterproductive to be a legend.
The gospels especially are full of things that you would not make up if you wanted a legend to beef up your authority. The apostles are constantly portrayed as buffoons. They get theology wrong. They’re mean to little kids. If puppies had been walking by, they’d have kicked them. If you were writing yourself into a legend, would you make yourself look that foolish?

Think of Peter, the leader of the Church. Matthew records a story in which Jesus calls Peter Satan. Yes, the supreme enemy of mankind—Satan. You can be sure that if Jesus called me Satan to my face, I wouldn’t be tweeting about it. But it’s in there because it actually happened.

The gospels record that women were the first ones to see Jesus after his resurrection. A woman’s testimony was not accepted in court during those days, so if you were making up stuff to establish the truthfulness of a claim, you would not have made women your primary witnesses. The gospel writers put women as the first ones to see Jesus because, well, that’s what happened.

3. The literary form of gospels is too detailed to be legend.
This is probably my favorite. The gospels have a lot of random details that wouldn’t be in a legend, since they aren’t part of the moral meaning. So in Mark 4, Mark mentions that Jesus was sitting in a ship and there were a lot of other little ships. The other ships have nothing to do with the plot; they were just there.

Later on, in the midst of a really serious reflection on the Garden of Gethsemane, Mark records a detail about a guy running away naked (Mark 14:51–52). Why? Because it doesn’t matter what story you’re telling: if a naked man runs by, that’s going to end up in it.

These days, people writing fiction add details like this to make a story sound more believable, but that form of writing never occurred before the 18th century. Besides, if the apostles were doing that, that means they were intentionally lying. But did they have a good motive for that? Did their lies keep them out of trouble? Hardly, which leads me to . . .

4. The message was itself too costly to be a legend.
As Blaise Pascal said, “I believe witnesses who have their throats cut.” The message that Jesus was Lord and had risen from the dead didn’t gain the apostles any power or prestige. In fact, it lead to nearly all of them getting killed.

To say that the apostles fabricated these stories means that they decided to invent a religion knowing it would end in their painful, humiliating deaths. Imagine the scene of Peter pitching this and the other disciples saying, “Great idea, Pete! Let’s lose everything for a hoax! I don’t want my money or my property or my life anyway!” I don’t find that a compelling scenario.

Peter would eventually be crucified upside-down, refusing to recant his confession that Jesus was alive. This is the same Peter who denied he even knew Jesus during his trial—to a teenage girl. Where would Peter have gotten the courage to change his mind for a lie? Would Peter, who denied the living Jesus, really have died for a dead one?

I don’t believe in Jesus based on blind faith. I believe in Jesus for the same reason these first believers did: because I am convinced the testimony of the apostles is truethat Jesus really did resurrect from the dead. And if Jesus really is alive, that changes everything.


And, on point three, C.S. Lewis makes a good observation. He makes the point that his academic speciality was literary criticism (it was! his theological and apologetic writing was a hobby.), and that he was quite familiar with fiction writing techniques through the ages. In the story of the woman taken in adultery, Our Lord bends down and writes in the sand. Why was that included? It's the sort of thing that might be included in a novel, but novels weren't invented until centuries later. He maintains that that detail was included because it was an eye witness account
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#14
(03-05-2018, 11:45 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote:
(03-05-2018, 11:16 PM)angeltime Wrote:
(03-05-2018, 11:10 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Right. When it comes to the Gospels we know that they were written by the the Apostles or their immediate followers. However, their intended audiences were certainly not the same. They were written for different people of different cultures and preexisting beliefs. That's why certain things were stressed out expanded on in each of the different Gospels.
Peace.....yes, I understand your reasoning.  We can also emphasize more or less on what we like or dont like personally, so the story builds all around that point.  One has to be a very good reader to read between the lines and a very good listener to hear the TRUTH.  (It is a grace to know the difference - My sheep know my voice - in other words!)  When I was young at school, it was my chore to give the weather report for the day and I always emphasized sunny with a bright cheery face and posture and then rainy days with a sad face and downish posture - finally the teacher told me not to do that - and I think this is why - because I gave the impression of what I personally liked and didnt like in the weather.....haha!!  I was only about 10 yrs old...angeltime

There's another aspect of the differences in the Gospels too, especially when it comes to John.  I really really like the history of John and his writings.  John had a very special relationship with the Lord.  It appears that to John, Jesus imparted knowledge, or made him to understand things that no one else grasped at the time.  John had this very well developed theology and unique way of explaining who Jesus was.  This made the Gospel seem more sophisticated, and therefore scholars assumed it had to come later in time.  But again, the latest research shows this isn't true.  

Instead, what is clear is that John had insights that he treasured and taught to others, and eventually it became absorbed into the broader Christian community.  This wasn't schismatic or anything like that.  It was just John treasuring a particularly deep understanding of the Lord.  His own understanding based on grace and his closeness to Christ.  The reason that the Johannine group wasn't schismatic is evident in John's Gospel.  It's clear that Jesus treasures his relationship with John, but even then, John asserts Peter's primacy ("Feed my sheep" etc).  It would be the easiest thing in the world for John to say that because he was the beloved disciple, he was the Big Man on Campus; instead he deferred to Peter.  

I guess my point is just that John wasn't simply writing a Gospel for a different audience.  He was revealing a unique insight into Jesus based on his privileged relationship with Jesus, and that's why his Gospel is different.
Peace.....I can see that this is how Jesus would have left all of this for us - there is something for everyone to read into at various times of their lives, but also culturally and to fit other languages  - like parables.  We know we can read scriptures at different times (the same passage) and it can mean something different to us each time we meditate on it - this is the importance of meditation.  Jesus did  say, Let anyone who understands this, understand it.....his relationship with everyone and each one then, would be different, just as it is with us now.  God bless, angeltime :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)