Are the gospels genuine?

by ackack 79 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • ackack

    I've been reading the Jesus Puzzle and something interesting was this re-ordering of Q. Its seems like the various pieces of Q in Luke and Matthew have different contexts. This would support that the contexts for the Q sayings were invented.

    It seems that Paul doesn't reference the gospels in any form.. does this support a late writing for the gospels and therefore calls into question how close the gospels were written to the alleged events of Jesus' life?

    How would someone who believes in the gospels reconcile these differences? Or otherwise, how sound is this reasoning?


  • Narkissos

    Nice summary imo.

    Even if there was a historical Jesus none of the Gospels is a historical account of his life (or teachings).

    Or (the other side of the coin): the "Jesus" of Christian faith is not a historical character. (Otoh he is a historicised character.)

  • defd

    Yes the gospels are geniune.


  • Enigma One
    Enigma One

    You should pick up the book of Enoch and read it. That's one of those "deleted" books of the bible...but is colorful and interesting.

  • doofdaddy

    Now that I am no longer a jw, I research material that was forbidden.

    Example is the virgin birth. Only mentioned in two gospel accounts and not mentioned at all by Paul in any of his writings!!!

    Imagine such an vital issue not restated by jesus disciples.

    It appears to have been added to scripture at a later date by followers of ancient dieties who became christian in the first century.

    These writings( gospel/new testament) were just letters that were held as the word of the original disciples by different christian churches(and countries). They were mixed and matched to popular belief over centuries. Letters that didn't "fit" were removed.

    Genuine? Well an amazing piece of stitch work by the early Roman church.

    God's word? No, a little more mundane than that. A way to unite their empire....religion

  • Abaddon

    I love seeing patterns; in this thread the nay sayers give reasons why, the belivers bleat "Yes", but provide no back-up for it.

    Defd, faith without works is dead; do some work

  • peacefulpete

    I'm now very doubtful of a Q document ever existing. The Farrer/Goodacre hypothesis makes better sense and doesn't require the invention of a Q. G.Mark (or rather what became named Mark by later theologians) resulted from the sewing together existing passion narratives with Pauline material and OT Midrash. The narrative of Mark was modified a number of times especially after G. Matt and Luke became popular in their respective quarters. Simply put G.Matt (or rather what was later named Matt) is a Jewish Christian recension of Mark with a great deal of new material. The new material could have been floating about in oral form but just as likely it was the product of the author's mind. G.Luke (or rather what was later named Luke) is a reordered version of Matt without the overt Jewish Christian spin possible made for bishop Theophilus. Each of these verisons were used in respectibe communities and only later the 3 were Cannonized because of the similarities. Each underwent a series of redactions and harmonizations as well as scribal erors so that a more precise reconstruction is impossible. Get a parallel Gospel and see for yourself how the books lay beside each other pericope by pericope.

  • gumby

    God speaks from heaven saying,

    "This is my son, listen to him"! God later gives his son powers to walk on water, makes dead fish duplicate themselves to feed the hungry, raises the dead, walks through walls, causes a big earthquake in Jerusalem when his son is executed......................but he can't drop a damn hardcover free book out of the sky called the bible.

    Instead, he ( god ), waits till apostacy sets in regarding his son, waits till the whore Catholics gain power and evil poitical rulers take over along with their bribe takin, lying, asskissing, brownosin, sidekick, respected christian/philosphers.........and decides he'll record his sons activities and make a New Testement so all men and women on the planet can gain eternal life by reading it's god inspired contents.

    That's like lettin a damn theif carry around your wallet for ya!


  • AuldSoul

    The Gospels would not have been regarded as Scripture at the time they were written, so Paul would have been unlikely to quote from them in any case. He did quote from notable Gentile authors of some centuries prior nd quoted extensively from OT texts, but did not quote from any contemporary works.

    It is possible (with due respect to Narkissos difference of opinion) that Jesus was a historical character (as opposed to merely historicized). When we examine the stories of George Washington or Benjamin Franklin in early U.S. lore we find ample evidence of a human tendency to romanticize key figures, especially does this trait seem to hold with poorly educated people.

    Should we imagine that something similar would not have held true among poorly educated Jews? Imagine if Luke used eyewitness interviews, a recognizably suspect source, to recreate the tales of people's experiences with Ben Franklin after Ben died. Would there be some degree of accuracy? Surely. Would some of the events recorded read almost verbatim as they occurred? Yes. But, in all honesty, what else would we expect to find amongst the factual accounts?

    Suppose Matthew, an eyewitness, reads Luke's account and says to himself, "Hm. Pretty accurate, but there are some bits he has happening here that actually happened here. And this bit over there is worded close to what I remember, but I distinctly recall that Jesus also said x, y, and z. And I'm sure he never said a, b, and c in my presence."

    Tough to believe? Not from looking at autobiographical and biographical works of our modern times and considering how much criticism these receive by those who lived through the events described in the books.

    Mark gets thrown in prison with Peter who regales him with the account from his perspective (after Peter has read the accounts of both Matthew and Luke. Mark writes an abbreviated version (who knows what the motivation is for doing so) that alters some details according to Mark's perceptions of Peter's perceptions. Will it be historically accurate? Not likely. Will it fundamentally convey Jesus as the person who told Mark the tale saw him? Very likely, whether the detail is precise or not.

    John, supposedly Jesus' best friend, has the advantage of outliving most of those who could challenge his version. It's very easy to call yourself the one Christ especially loved when everyone else who knew Jesus well was already "kicked off the island" (so to speak). However, John's account gives me a more personal view of Jesus than the other Gospels, exploring more of the way Jesus felt and revealing more of the motivations for his choices than the other writers. This adds weight to the assertion that John knew him well, unless John was just a particularly gifted writer of fiction.

    Actual historical figure? Yes, I believe so. Historicized? To a degree, without a doubt in my mind. However, I believe the core of the sort of person he was shines through all the clutter quite nicely. That's my take. Go ahead and tear it apart, Narkissos. I know you can.


  • oldflame

    I believe the gospels are genuine. The books in the bible are written by different people at different times. What would be the point or good if each book said the exact same thing ? If we all here were to present a situation, would it not be a different presentation than everyone else's. ? There is a game that often gets plaed when a group of people sit around a table or bar and one person starts with a saying or story and then it gets repeated by each person. By the time the story gets to the end it is a different story.

    So the books of the bible are different, they were also written at different times and some have long spans between them. I don't think that any of this takes away from the purpose of the gospel, each one stays the same course but with different meaning and different purposes.

Share this