Jtwarren said
Are the gospels true? Especially with the Q source or whatever? Plus, are Paul’s letters legit?
I had this thought today and I was like am I being deceived by the devil not to think Christianity is real?
The gospels are mostly fiction. Q is hypothetical. About half of Paul’s letters are genuine.
And the devil is too busy with Steefen to worry about you.
CEJ is being a little heavy handed in that reply. A more nuanced position would be that there are clearly problems with the gospel accounts, and the degree to which they might be accurate is difficult to determine. The letters attributed to Paul are generally divided into those that are considered more or less authentic, and those that are considered problematic. Whether the problematic ones are misattributions, laden with interpolations, or outright forgeries is a matter of dispute, but they at least seem not to be fully by the person we know of named Paul.
Simple and neat answers to questions about the Bible are rare, and usually not about issues of much interest.
Jtwarren said
Yea, I read an article from a Christian website saying that the gospels were written within a few decades, but the resurrection was talk about orally as soon as people witnessed the resurrected Jesus. So, I honestly don’t know.
Well you found the right place. Prof Ehrman has spent 30 years writing about just this subject.
Jtwarren said
Yea, I read an article from a Christian website saying that the gospels were written within a few decades, but the resurrection was talk about orally as soon as people witnessed the resurrected Jesus. So, I honestly don’t know.
Mark was written in the early ’70s. Matthew and Luke are usually placed in the ’80s. John is normally dated in the ’90s. They were all written anonymously and later ascribed to their supposed authors. Paul’s letters come from the ’50s or thereabouts. All those texts used earlier source material. Matthew and Luke, for example, used Mark as well as other sources. And Paul tells us, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, what he has received — a statement of faith that predates his ministry. Also, there’s no reasonable doubt in my estimation that Paul met with Peter, James and John in Jerusalem and had a falling out with Peter in Antioch.
But as to any notion that “people witnessed the resurrected Jesus”, well, that just didn’t happen.
Now stay away from those Christian websites. Most of them have kooties.
It is probably fair to say that none of the supernatural elements claimed by the gospels, or any book of the Bible, can actually be verified. These become matters purely of faith precisely because they cannot be proven (or, really, disproven, although the burden of proof probably rightly falls on those making the extraordinary claims in favor of them). A major problem arises when those who do believe attempt to convert those who do not by asserting these supernatural claims as themselves some kind of proof. A similar problem arises when people who do not believe attempt to convert those who do by entirely dismissing all of the claims made in the Bible precisely because it also contains supernatural elements.
It is probably fair to say that none of the supernatural elements claimed by the gospels, or any book of the Bible, can actually be verified. These become matters purely of faith precisely because they cannot be proven…
I’m hardly one to have an opinion I suppose but this is what depresses me most about modern Christian apologetics. I have family members who subscribe to the idea that the Resurrection is subject to historical proof. This is their homage to the scientific spirit of our age I guess but it seems to abandon the one thing that Christian belief can actually hope to provide. A bridge to transcendence. If you give that up who cares about the rest of it? But as I said i don’t suppose I get to have an opinion.
Jtwarren said
Are the gospels true? Especially with the Q source or whatever? Plus, are Paul’s letters legit?I had this thought today and I was like am I being deceived by the devil not to think Christianity is real?
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
The gospels are not historically accurate.
The gospels are misleading.
Paul’s character leaves plenty to be desired.
Paul’s apocalypse does not defer to the biblical Jesus’s apocalypse. Compare them.
The Hebrew Bible is not historically accurate.
The gospels are based on a Jewish purist, the biblical Jesus who advocated not just being a purist of the letter of Hebrew scripture.
The Hebrew Bible is not historically accurate, is not true; so, building on a faulty foundation, the gospels are not true.
Here is a good introduction to my book. You will see what I mean.
Yes, Bart Ehrman has been writing about this subject and concluded Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. Paul does not agree with Jesus’s apocalyptic vision. The book of Revelation does not agree with Jesus’ apocalyptic vision. Nowhere does Jesus say the glorious kingdom headed by the Son of Man will only last a thousand years. [Revelation 20: 6] I haven’t expressed this before. Second, Jesus, in the gospels goes from Son of Man, in the first person. Later in his ministry, the Son of Man is spoken of in the third person. The first chapter of the Book of Revelation refers to “one like a Son of man” [1: 12-13].
The first chapter of the Book of Revelation refers to “one like a Son of man” in Revelation 1:12-13 which radiantly stands in glory and speaks to the author. In the Gospel of John Jesus is not just a messianic figure, nor a prophet like Moses, but the key emphasis is on his dual role as Son of God and Son of man. Son of man (Christianity) – Wikipedia, a result to the question “Is the Son of Man mentioned in the Book of Revelation?”
Let’s look at 1: 12-13
Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was One like the Son of Man, dressed in a long robe, with a golden sash around His chest.
Berean Study Bible
= = =
and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[** you do not have permission to see this link **] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.
NIV
= = =
and in the midst of the lampstands was one like a son of man. He was dressed in a robe extending down to his feet and he wore a wide golden belt around his chest.
NET Bible
= = =
Who is he? Verse 17 says He is the first and the last and goes on to say, I will grant the right to eat from the tree of life in the Paradise of God.
“The angel” is speaking to John in Revelation chapter 22 from verse 1 up to and including verse 6, which is the epilogue to the section about Jesus coming. Then Jesus speaks in verse 7. It is Jesus who is coming, not the angel, and it is the voice of Jesus that is heard.
John takes over the narrative in verse 8 where he is about to fall down and worship at the feet of the angel, but the angel expressly forbids it.
But back to chapter 1:
Revelation Chapter 1 opens with a prologue that lets the reader know that the revelation is from Jesus Christ Himself. He made this known by sending an angel to His servant, John, who had been exiled to the island of Patmos.
Unlike the gospels where Jesus distances himself from the role of the Son of Man by speaking of that role in the third person, Jesus returns to apocalyptic importance in Revelation, Chapter 1.
# # #
Steefen said
Jtwarren said
Are the gospels true? Especially with the Q source or whatever? Plus, are Paul’s letters legit?
I had this thought today and I was like am I being deceived by the devil not to think Christianity is real?
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
The gospels are not historically accurate.
The gospels are misleading.
Paul’s character leaves plenty to be desired.
Paul’s apocalypse does not defer to the biblical Jesus’s apocalypse. Compare them.
The Hebrew Bible is not historically accurate.
The gospels are based on a Jewish purist, the biblical Jesus who advocated not just being a purist of the letter of Hebrew scripture.
The Hebrew Bible is not historically accurate, is not true; so, building on a faulty foundation, the gospels are not true.
Here is a good introduction to my book. You will see what I mean.
Yes, Bart Ehrman has been writing about this subject and concluded Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. Paul does not agree with Jesus’s apocalyptic vision. The book of Revelation does not agree with Jesus’ apocalyptic vision. Nowhere does Jesus say the glorious kingdom headed by the Son of Man will only last a thousand years. [Revelation 20: 6] I haven’t expressed this before. Second, Jesus, in the gospels goes from Son of Man, in the first person. Later in his ministry, the Son of Man is spoken of in the third person. The first chapter of the Book of Revelation refers to “one like a Son of man” [1: 12-13].
The first chapter of the Book of Revelation refers to “one like a Son of man” in Revelation 1:12-13 which radiantly stands in glory and speaks to the author. In the Gospel of John Jesus is not just a messianic figure, nor a prophet like Moses, but the key emphasis is on his dual role as Son of God and Son of man. Son of man (Christianity) – Wikipedia, a result to the question “Is the Son of Man mentioned in the Book of Revelation?”
Let’s look at 1: 12-13
Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was One like the Son of Man, dressed in a long robe, with a golden sash around His chest.
Berean Study Bible
= = =
and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[** you do not have permission to see this link **] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.
NIV
= = =
and in the midst of the lampstands was one like a son of man. He was dressed in a robe extending down to his feet and he wore a wide golden belt around his chest.
NET Bible
= = =
Who is he? Verse 17 says He is the first and the last and goes on to say, I will grant the right to eat from the tree of life in the Paradise of God.
1The New Living Translation Study Bible is helpful in identifying which words are spoken by the angel and which words are spoken by Jesus in chapter 22.
“The angel” is speaking to John in Revelation chapter 22 from verse 1 up to and including verse 6, which is the epilogue to the section about Jesus coming. Then Jesus speaks in verse 7. It is Jesus who is coming, not the angel, and it is the voice of Jesus that is heard.John takes over the narrative in verse 8 where he is about to fall down and worship at the feet of the angel, but the angel expressly forbids it.
But back to chapter 1:
Revelation Chapter 1 opens with a prologue that lets the reader know that the revelation is from Jesus Christ Himself. He made this known by sending an angel to His servant, John, who had been exiled to the island of Patmos.
Unlike the gospels where Jesus distances himself from the role of the Son of Man by speaking of that role in the third person, Jesus returns to apocalyptic importance in Revelation, Chapter 1.
# # #
**zzzzzzzzzzz**
What? Huh?
No. I’m awake.
But thanks for asking.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert