Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can the Gospels stand scrutiny?
Namesdan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 28 (211511)
05-26-2005 2:17 PM


Is there evidence to show that the gospels in the Christian Bible are in fact true and are reliable historical accounts?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminBrian, posted 05-26-2005 2:22 PM Namesdan has replied

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 28 (211514)
05-26-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Namesdan
05-26-2005 2:17 PM


Could you perhaps give a brief outline of what you would accept as being 'evidence'.
Please keep in mind that you are speaking specifically here about an histoical investigation.
AdminBrian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Namesdan, posted 05-26-2005 2:17 PM Namesdan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Namesdan, posted 05-26-2005 2:25 PM AdminBrian has not replied

  
Namesdan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 28 (211518)
05-26-2005 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminBrian
05-26-2005 2:22 PM


Evidence being anything that could be used in court so that a judge and jury could rule for or against it, this would include other witness accounts, science, historical documents, mathematics, and others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminBrian, posted 05-26-2005 2:22 PM AdminBrian has not replied

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 28 (211521)
05-26-2005 2:29 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Okay.
Can we keep this topic focussed on maybe a couple of points at a time rather than trying to tackle everything at once?
AdminBrian
This message has been edited by AdminBrian, 05-26-2005 02:30 PM

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 28 (211522)
05-26-2005 2:34 PM


I'd like to ask:
How certain are we that the Gospels were written by those people whose names are attached to them?
It is common knowledge that all of the Gospels are anonymous, so how reliable is the allocation of the titles?
Brian.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Namesdan, posted 05-26-2005 5:38 PM Brian has not replied

  
Namesdan
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 28 (211571)
05-26-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
05-26-2005 2:34 PM


Thanks for asking brian
I know alot of the authorship stuff comes from other historical sources. For example, I know the evidence to show that the gospel of Mark was written by John Mark was found in sources from Irenaeus, Eusubius, Origen, Clements of Alexandria, and Papias. All these has references of this second gospel being written by Mark and actually preached by Peter in the city of Rome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 05-26-2005 2:34 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ramoss, posted 05-26-2005 7:04 PM Namesdan has not replied
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2005 2:50 AM Namesdan has replied
 Message 9 by purpledawn, posted 05-27-2005 6:13 AM Namesdan has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 7 of 28 (211588)
05-26-2005 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Namesdan
05-26-2005 5:38 PM


The author of Mark might have known Peter, but that would not make him an eye witness.
From Gospel of Mark
quote:
The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."
This message has been edited by ramoss, 05-26-2005 07:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Namesdan, posted 05-26-2005 5:38 PM Namesdan has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 28 (211697)
05-27-2005 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Namesdan
05-26-2005 5:38 PM


Can you elaboprate on your list of sources ? What they say, when they lived, how reliable they are ?
For instance, didn't Papias report that Mark's Gospel did not present events in the correct chronological order ? Surely that is directly relevant to any claim of reliability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Namesdan, posted 05-26-2005 5:38 PM Namesdan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Namesdan, posted 05-27-2005 1:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 9 of 28 (211724)
05-27-2005 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Namesdan
05-26-2005 5:38 PM


Authorship Stuff
quote:
All these has references of this second gospel being written by Mark and actually preached by Peter in the city of Rome.
According to Irenaeus, Mark the interpreter, wrote about what Peter preached.
Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."
As I commented in another thread, Paul of Tarsus, the fragment from Papias used by Irenaeus doesn't really connect Mark the interpreter with the gospel we have today.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Namesdan, posted 05-26-2005 5:38 PM Namesdan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Namesdan, posted 05-27-2005 1:15 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Namesdan
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 28 (211814)
05-27-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by purpledawn
05-27-2005 6:13 AM


Re: Authorship Stuff
Your right about Mark writing what Peter preached, I guess i worded it wrong.
As with the other comment, i already discussed that on the Paul of Tarsus thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by purpledawn, posted 05-27-2005 6:13 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by purpledawn, posted 05-27-2005 3:24 PM Namesdan has replied

  
Namesdan
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 28 (211817)
05-27-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
05-27-2005 2:50 AM


You are right that Mark did not right it in any chronological order. The reason for this is that Mark wrote down messages preached by Peter while they were in Rome. These accounts can be found through various sources; Papias, Iranaeus, Eusubius, Origin, and Clement of Alexandria. They all speak of three main things; Mark writing a gospel account from Peters preaching, that Peter was there at the time, and that they were in Rome (one actually says Italy).
I find reason to believe that they are reliable since they all say the same things, basically, and for something such as that, I wouldn't see any motive for all of them to lie to an accountable(Christian) audience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2005 2:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2005 2:12 PM Namesdan has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 28 (211832)
05-27-2005 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Namesdan
05-27-2005 1:25 PM


Actually there seems to be disagreement over whether Mark wrote whiel Peter was alive or not. The question of the chronological order suggests that the final redaction of the material - at least - was written after Peter was not available to answer such questions.
Of course this means that Mark is second hand. And since one of Matthew and Mark is almost certainly dependent on the other it strongly argues against the Gospel called Matthew being written by the Disciple Matthew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Namesdan, posted 05-27-2005 1:25 PM Namesdan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Namesdan, posted 05-27-2005 2:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
Namesdan
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 28 (211839)
05-27-2005 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
05-27-2005 2:12 PM


Many scholars agree that Matthew leaned heavily on Marks accounts, as did Luke, or vice versa, and that may be that both authors wanted to be accurate on their accounts and show that their apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided. There is also the thought that the gospels were not written for a chronological timeline of Jesus actions but to portray teachings and truths through the actions he did. This goes in line with the fact that Mark doesn't follow a chronological order but cares more about portraying the main teachings of Jesus instead of a timeline. This idea can also be found in many Old Testament writing were many of the writings don't follow a concise timeline but are based more on presenting a specific idea or relevant point.
For on wether Mark wrote while Peter was alive, look at the arguements i presented in the thread 'Paul of Tarsus'.
This message has been edited by Namesdan, 05-27-2005 02:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2005 2:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2005 2:51 PM Namesdan has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 28 (211850)
05-27-2005 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Namesdan
05-27-2005 2:23 PM


I looked at your post on the other thread and it seems there is no agreement in your sources. It is claimed that Mark write and published while Peter was alive, that Mark wrote when Peter was around and published after he was gone and that Mark did not write until after Peter was dead. But even the source which claims that Mark published in Peter's lifetime indicates that Mark did not consult with Peter on his writing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Namesdan, posted 05-27-2005 2:23 PM Namesdan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Namesdan, posted 05-27-2005 2:56 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Namesdan
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 28 (211853)
05-27-2005 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
05-27-2005 2:51 PM


Exerpt from thread 'Paul of Tarsus'
'The date for which the gospel of Mark was written is uncertain at this point but more scholars agree that it was before the death of Peter (64 or 67 A.D.). The Paschal Chronicle assigns it to 40 A.D., the 'Chronicle' of Esubius says it was written in 'the third year of Cluadius' (43 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria pointed out that Peter was in Rome when Mark wrote the gospel. Some say it is clear it was written before 70 A.D. since there was no indication of the Temple in Jerusalem already being destroyed in the prediction noted in Mark 13:2. The gospel, to most scholars, find that it was written between the dates of 50 A.D. and 67 A.D.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2005 2:51 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024