This is a huge study by leading scholars and theologians.. It includes many pages and videos. I found it informative and fascinating What Are the Gospels? Neither biographies nor objective historical accounts, the gospels resembled religious advertisements. L. Michael White: Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin GOSPELS ARE NOT BIOGRAPHIES The gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Rather, they are stories told in such a way as to evoke a certain image of Jesus for a particular audience. They're trying to convey a message about Jesus, about his significance to the audience and thus we we have to think of them as a kind of preaching, as well as story telling. That's what the gospel, The Good News, is really all about. The four gospels that we find in the New Testament, are of course,Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first three of these are usually referred to as the "synoptic gospels," because they look at things in a similar way, or they are similar in the way that they tell the story. Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next - written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John's gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well. Paula Fredriksen: William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University "RELIGIOUS ADVERTISEMENTS" The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies. I mean, there are all sorts of details about Jesus that they're simply not interested in giving us. They are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelist's position. The evangelist is not an author of fiction. The evangelist has traditions that go back through the Greek to the spoken language of Jesus, which was probably Aramaic. In other words, I think there's some kind of continuity between what Jesus would have been saying to other Jews in 27 to 30 and what the Evangelists in Greek are saying to their own communities, that Jesus said. But, as historians, we have to sift, and go through and try to figure out what corresponds mostly to the period of the composition in Greek and what corresponds to the lifetime of the historical Jesus. IMAGES OF JESUS IN THE GOSPELS Did the gospels present sort of the same image of Jesus? The gospel tradition divides into two streams. There's Mark and there's John. Mark is the earliest gospel written, probably, shortly after the war that destroyed the Temple, the war between Rome and Judea. And Mark presents one type of Jesus with a particular narrative where Jesus begins in the Galilee and he ends his life in Jerusalem. John, a gospel that we can't date at all, has Jesus really with the Jerusalem ministry. He's scarcely in Galilee at all. And he's really talking and preaching and doing in Jerusalem. It's a quite different story and a quite different personality. Matthew and Luke depend on Mark. Which is why those three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are called the synoptic gospels. Because they can be understood together. But in terms of literary dependency, Matthew and Luke construct their story around the plot provided by Mark. Allen D. Callahan: Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School GOSPELS ARE NOT EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS If you take the gospels as a factual account of the life of Jesus, they're not all in sync... Well, there are what we might identify as contradictions in the account. Some of this has to do with our methodology. If we want to read the gospels as eye witness accounts, historical records and so on, then not only are we in for some tough going, I think there's evidence within the material itself that it's not intended to be read that way. I mean that there are certain concerns that are being addressed in this literature. And we become theologically and even historically tone deaf to those concerns, if we don't give them due consideration. It's now consensus in the New Testament scholarship to some extent [that]... in the gospels we're dealing with theologians, people who are reflecting theologically on Jesus already. And there's all indication that what we now refer to as theological reflection was there at the very beginning of things.... Are you saying that the gospels are of little value as eye witness accounts of his life? Well, they don't claim to be eye witness accounts of his life. I don't think that the people who are responsible for those documents were staying up at night worried about those kinds of things. They're making certain arguments and they have concerns..., and they are articulating those arguments and they're forwarding those concerns based on what they know and what other people know about what Jesus said and did. HISTORICAL CONSTRAINTS Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html#ixzz1hkMn9TCX
they are literary works of 'art'. Meaning: close but not the real thing! The gospel of thomas is closer to 'truth' than the cannon's gospels. In thomas, they are (per se) sayings of jesus to enable each to think (for themselves). In contrast, the cannon style are about beliefs and story telling to tell people what to believe, per the religious preference.
Some only give individually remembered hi-lights of His earthly ministry, but they are indeed 'testimonies' of Him, as one would give their testimonies of coming to Christ. Personal testimonies are very important, as ppl cannot 'take away' the individual's testimony as to what they saw. Just as unbeliever's can hear them and say "I dont believe you,' that statement of unbelief does not invalidate the personal testimony, which they hold wrapped in their faith. And as far as events during the life of Jesus, per one Gospel: John 21:25 "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
In the meantime, we need some truth: The truth is the only valid use of every medium. http://ahabit.com/prince We had our Prince and we couldn't handle his truth.
America has no prince and there is no royalty except in their own minds. And young John Kennedy was none of those things. and on top of that he was dumb as a stump. Not unusual i guess for a guy that got everything because of his name and his looks. Poor caroline certainly didn't get the looks, the name has benefitted her to a degree but still there's that dumb as a stump thing which she exemplified quite well last time they trotted her out for a political seat.
He did served admirably during WW2. Of course being in the military isn't exactly a mark of great intellect, but still he was an officer and got wounded in the line of duty.
"Truth". Isn't that such a wonderful subject? IMHO, your statement above leads me to believe that the fact that most could not handle "his truth" when He was alive on earth, is magnified in this day and age by the fact that no-one seems to be able to comprehend truth in a way that is meaningful to everyone else without exception. His truth is still rejected today by the vast majority of people.
the bible, gospel, and history has been rewritten and changed so much over the centuries that what might of been true isn't anymore.. has anyone ever played that game where you have 20 people in line..you whisper something to the first person and by the time the last person gets what the first person said it's something completely different..
No, early Christians didn't regard the Gospels as an allegory. They are the truth the Word of God. They are not left up to muslims or any others to interpret allegorically. You need that type of interpretation because you don't know what your talking about. Quantrill
Taking the Bible literally is only about 130 years old... and it didn't even catch on here in the US until the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression.
Fundamentalism got its name from a series of pamphlets published between 1909 and 1915 under the title The Fundamentals: A Testimony to Truth. Written by various conservative Protestant scholars, these theological essays upheld the following as "fundamental" Christian doctrines: belief in the inerrancy of the Bible; the virgin birth; the physical resurrection of Jesus; a "substitutionary" theory of the atonement (that is, one which holds that Jesus died in mans stead, satisfying the requirements of Divine justice through vicarious suffering for the sins of the whole world); and the expectation of a physical "Second Coming" of Christ, when he will judge the world. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~edgoodwi/fundamentalistmovement.html
Fundamentalism and literalism are considered by most scholars to be modern day heresies. In Judaism there had never been a belief in the literal word of the Hebrew Bible.
There you go with your leaning upon the opinions of other people again. Are you afraid to lean on the opinion of the Holy Spirit? In your second sentence of protest, you use the word "never". That is an awful long time. Do you KNOW absolutely that statement to be 100% accurate so that it would include every Hebrew that has ever lived? No? Then I guess that statement is invalid due to a lack of evidence regarding the absoluteness of the term "never".
Why? I don't need their opinions to guide my life. Why don't you lean on the advice and opinion of the Holy Spirit?
Then why argue? There are Christians who believe differently than you... Does God actually talk to you?
Who is arguing? I am merely stating my opinion on various topics of discussion (except in cases where I have been given instructions to deliver to someone else). Yes! The Holy Spirit speaks to me on a daily basis.
That all depends on the day, the activity that I am involved in, the message that He has to give to me, and many other variables. Why do you ask? Are you intending to be another Giftedone and also accuse me of blasphemy? Have you tried talking to the Holy Spirit? If not, your better bet would be to do your own communicating with Him, that way you don't have to be concerned about me giving you the wrong information. "Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Rev 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. "
I know Paul had written to all the churches while he was in prison in Rome, before the Gospels were written down and before the Revelation was written.
