I wanted to call this Thread "Things Unlikely to be written in a Fictional Gospel." But that title is too long.
If the gospel writers were concocting a fictional account designed to be passed on as fact, are there some things that they would have been unlikely to include?
I think there are. The inclusion of many things have a ring of authenticity about them. I seriously doubt that the authors of the New Testament would have included them if they were attempting to pass on a hoax as the truth.
I'll include a few at a time.
Originally posted by jaywillYou have to take into account the fact that the gospels are what survived when many of the concotions were so obviously wrong.
I wanted to call this Thread [b]"Things Unlikely to be written in a Fictional Gospel." But that title is too long.
If the gospel writers were concocting a fictional account designed to be passed on as fact, are there some things that they would have been unlikely to include?
I think there are. The inclusion of many things have a ring of au ...[text shortened]... if they were attempting to pass on a hoax as the truth.
I'll include a few at a time.[/b]
As with the dead sea scrolls, the information about the time of christ has been supressed and selected.
The Gospels are what was selected much later so that a more logical and consistent religious viewpoint could be put forward.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilI'm not sure where you get your information, but the canon of scripture was codified in the first century.
You have to take into account the fact that the gospels are what survived when many of the concotions were so obviously wrong.
As with the dead sea scrolls, the information about the time of christ has been supressed and selected.
The Gospels are what was selected much later so that a more logical and consistent religious viewpoint could be put forward.
1.) It is unlikely that disciples creating a fictional account of Jesus would write that His family once considered Him "out of His mind" and went to bring Him home (Mark 3:21,31).
Wouldn't they be embarresed to write that His own family went to sieze Him and bring Him home because He was not mentally sane?
2.) It is unlikely that a fictional account of their Master would record that His own brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5)
What endorsement would that be, that His brothers didn't believe His claims?
3.) If it was ficional what profit would it be to the hoax to record that many of His own followers deserted Him? (John 6:66)
4.) If it was a fictitious hoax why would they record that even some Jews who came to believe in Him were subsequently offended and wanted to stone Him? (John 8:30-31, 59)
5.) It is unlikely that they would have recorded that He was thought to be a deceiver, if it was a hoax (John 7:12)
The inclusion of potentially embaressing material rings of the authenticity of the accounts. And there are more examples of the candidness of the record which are more likely to indicate authenticity rather than fiction.
Originally posted by jaywillThis rubbish is typical of teh flawed logic of the average God botherer:
I wanted to call this Thread [b]"Things Unlikely to be written in a Fictional Gospel." But that title is too long.
If the gospel writers were concocting a fictional account designed to be passed on as fact, are there some things that they would have been unlikely to include?
I think there are. The inclusion of many things have a ring of au ...[text shortened]... if they were attempting to pass on a hoax as the truth.
I'll include a few at a time.[/b]
"Some things seem likely to be true, therefore, all of it must be true".
Hilarious.
Originally posted by howardgeeIf the disciples wanted to concoct a fictional Master it is more likely that they would conceal certain embarressing information:
This rubbish is typical of teh flawed logic of the average God botherer:
"Some things seem likely to be true, therefore, all of it must be true".
Hilarious.
1.) I think they would conceal the fact that Jesus was called a "drunkard" ( Matt. 11:19)
2.) I think they would have kept under wraps that He was thought to be "demon-possessed" ( Mark 3:22; John 7:20, 8:48).
3.) I think they would have wanted the memory to pass away that He had been accused of being a "madman" (John 10:20)
4.) If they wanted to concoct a fictional pure person they might have wanted to conceal that a prostitute wiped his feet with her hair (Luke 7:36-39). Such an event had the strong potential to be taken as a sexual advance.
5.) It would not have served their cause to invent a Jewish Messiah if He were hung up on a tree. "Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse "(Deut. 21:23; comp. Gal. 3:13)
Why would they include such a disqualifying piece of information?
The inclusion of embaressing material tends to indicate the authenticity of the account.
6.) The women were the first to witness Him in resurrection. The men were afraid and hiding away in houses. I think if it were fictional the male authors would have had it the other way around. They probably would say that the women were hiding because of fear and the men folks were the first to see Him in His resurrection.
Where was the typical male chauvinist propoganda?
7.) Another potentially embaressing piece of information was that His own disciples failed to give Him a proper burial. Joseph of Arimethia had to come forward with courage and secure the body of Jesus in a proper grave. Would the disciples be eager to record that they were too chicken to do so?
Originally posted by no1marauderI've done the research. The 66 books contained in the bible are just as they were at the end of the first century. Anything and everything else is a forgery.
Do your own research. And when you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to correct others.
Originally posted by josephwI think you need to redo the search. The bible in its current form and the books inside were choosen in 325 from many different books.
I've done the research. The 66 books contained in the bible are just as they were at the end of the first century. Anything and everything else is a forgery.
Do search again .....
Originally posted by Ian68Interesting, considering only one of the writers of the bible was Greek.
There were 12 or 13 gospels, the Greeks only liked four of them, fact, end of debate.
Now here's the fact. The apostle Paul wrote in Colossians 1:25, Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil (fill full) the word of God.
Paul wrote 2 Timithy just before he got his head chopped off around 66- 67 A.D. Then the apostles and prophets of God, at that time, assembled the books of the bible in their current order.
If there is a God, and the bible is his word, then it is only logical that this is what happened. And it is only logical that counterfeits would spring up.
Of course I'm sure I'll be severly vilified for believing this.
The writers of the gospel not only included potentially embarressing material. They also included difficulties.
We see that they want to portray Jesus as God become a man, especially John. Yet they did not shy away from potentially problematic sayings which might be understood to undermine the intention.
1.) John who wants to portray Jesus as the Word - God Who became a man records that Jesus said "The Father is greater than I" ( John 14:28).
Had it been a conspiracy I think I hear the other disciples telling John "No man! Don't write that. That will defeat our whole scheme to pass Jesus off as God."
2.) Matthew includes a passage which many have interpreted as Jesus predicting He would return in that generation (Matt. 24:34).
Then Matthew tells us that Jesus said no one knows of the time of His return - "not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son" (Matt. 24:36)
This sure seems to make his scheme at a hoax less believable. The wieght of the evidence, I think, is more towards the fact that Matthew was faithful to candidly record difficult portions of the Master's teaching. He could have chosen to conceal such difficulties.
3.) Matthew also records Jesus cursing a fig tree for not having figs when it wasn't even the season for figs (Matt. 21:18).
That's a potentially disqualifying piece of evidence for a would be fictitious Righteous Messiah.
4.) Mark includes the potentially embaressing account that Jesus was not able to do many miracles in His own hometown, except to heal a few sick people (Mark 6:5)
I can hear Mark's companions tell him "What? In His own hometown, your Master was unable to do many miracles? Mark, you better leave that piece of data out of your gospel if you want people to believe He is Son of God."
5.) The gospel writers want to portray Jesus as God become a man and worthy of the worship as God. Yet Luke did not shrink from recording Jesus telling someone "Why do you call me good? ... No one is good - except God alone" (luke 18:19)
What I see is evidence of authenticity and faithfulness to record even difficult sayings of Jesus. Had Luke concocted a God-man worthy of worship he might well have attemted to steer clear of such a saying of Jesus. I think He was faithful to record difficult sayings of the Master.
Originally posted by jaywillNot sure who you're trying to convince or what you're trying to convince them of.
The writers of the gospel not only included potentially embarressing material. They also included difficulties.
We see that they want to portray Jesus as God become a man, especially John. Yet they did not shy away from potentially problematic sayings which might be understood to undermine the intention.
1.) John who wants to portray Jesus as th ...[text shortened]... ying of Jesus. I think He was faithful to record difficult sayings of the Master.
Few people doubt the historicity of Jesus's life. Where there is a problem is in the interpretation of that life - what does it mean? Was he a really nice guy or was he the son of some god?
And really, do you think your notions are doing anything other than making you look like a fool?
If it was some sort of conspiracy cooked up by some evil group (which I don't for a minute believe) putting in faults and flaws only serves to make this guy better and more believable. They only serve to make his work even more convincing. So of course flaws and mistakes would be included.