Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Reliability of the Gospels
8 years ago  ::  Jul 28, 2009 - 2:58AM #1
kurnell
Posts: 309

Does anyone else get peeved when they read something like the following......


"Well, the Gospels are not biographies but interpretations by the early Church, and as such, are suspect"


Now,I am neither a believer in biblical inerrancy or anything goes liberalism. Comments like this assume that the early Church were a bunch of deceivers, whose word is not to be trusted.But where is the evidence for this?


The early Christian had an incredible encounter with Jesus Christ, many in the flesh.It radically changed there lives. One of the by products was integrity and truthfulness, they rejected all kinds of falsehood. Yes, there is a certain interpretation in the Gospels.The writers were trying to communicate a sense of the revelation of God found in Jesus Christ to their world.To me there is nothing deceitful in that at all.They wrote what was best remembered of Jesus, His words and His works. If, as many believe, they wrote an embellished account, there were certainly those who would be quick to disclose their deception.


To me, the onus is on the detractors to show evidence of deception, not just assume it


  IMHO, the Gospels are  reliable and can be trusted as such.


Your comments?


Pax


Jeffrey

Treasure your experience of God,however it comes to you.Remember that Christianity is not a notion but a way.
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jul 28, 2009 - 9:28AM #2
slu_magoo
Posts: 1,008

I'm not going to debate with you at all.  However, I want to point one thing out with regard to your argument:  Generally, one must prove a positive, not a negative.  The burden of proof--whether in a legal setting, a scientific setting, or a historical setting--is on the person who makes the positive assertion.  In this case, that would be you -- not those with whom you are arguing.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jul 28, 2009 - 10:33AM #3
kurnell
Posts: 309

On the contrary. It is a cardinal principle of historical enquiry to privilege the evidence that has survived from the past, that is, to allow it to stand unless stronger historical evidence is produced as to why it should not.


The late C.H. Dodd wrote, There is no reason to doubt the essential accuracy of Jesus in the picture offered by the Gospels, so the burden of proof lies with those who reject it.


The problem with much popular biblical scholarship is the 'assumptions' they bring to the text. One of the most common is the "positivist".


Science, allied to logical reasoning, provides the only reliable route to knowledge; the rest is conjecture. The supernatural does not exist. Miracles either did not happen or have a non-miraculous explanation. The miracle-tinted Gospels are therefore unreliable historically.


Although many popular scholars claim they use scientific principles to examine the biblical text, they come with this kind of assumption. No objectivity.They just dismiss miracles, not on the basis of historical investigation but to a philosophical assumption they bring to the text.


Pax


Jeffrey


 

Treasure your experience of God,however it comes to you.Remember that Christianity is not a notion but a way.
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jul 29, 2009 - 11:42AM #4
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

The four Gospels is the best information that we have on the life, teachings and work of Jesus Christ. If they are not reliable, then we have no objective basis to know about Christ or to know Him.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jul 30, 2009 - 12:50PM #5
RJMcElwain
Posts: 3,013

The posting guidelines at the top say:


Beliefnet welcomes all Anglicans who consider themselves "Conservatives". This includes those who are not in the Communion and have split away from TEC and the Canadian Church. This discussion area is for Conservative Anglican members to talk with each other. Others may participate as respectful guests, but all criticisms must be directed to the debate board.


++++++++++++++++


I think you might find several takers if you want to debate this on the "Issues" Board. Smile However, out of respect, I won't debate it here.

Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jul 30, 2009 - 7:52PM #6
kurnell
Posts: 309

Dear Robert,


I am an Anglican, within the catholic tradition.While my theological views don't fall into any one particular 'camp', on the subject of the authenticity of the Gospels, I am conservative.That is why I placed this posting here to discuss with likeminded conservatives, on this subject.


Thus, I don't believe I have not transgressed the above mentioned rules.


Pax


Jeffrey

Treasure your experience of God,however it comes to you.Remember that Christianity is not a notion but a way.
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jul 31, 2009 - 2:04AM #7
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

Jul 30, 2009 -- 7:52PM, kurnell wrote:


Dear Robert,


I am an Anglican, within the catholic tradition.While my theological views don't fall into any one particular 'camp', on the subject of the authenticity of the Gospels, I am conservative.That is why I placed this posting here to discuss with likeminded conservatives, on this subject.


Thus, I don't believe I have not transgressed the above mentioned rules.


Pax


Jeffrey





I am puzzled by RJ's post. I, too, have been courteous and respectful here. I am a former TECie and I should be able to chat with you as long as I don't bite you. 

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jul 31, 2009 - 2:55PM #8
SeraphimR
Posts: 12,687

Jul 31, 2009 -- 2:04AM, Roodog wrote:


Jul 30, 2009 -- 7:52PM, kurnell wrote:


Dear Robert,


I am an Anglican, within the catholic tradition.While my theological views don't fall into any one particular 'camp', on the subject of the authenticity of the Gospels, I am conservative.That is why I placed this posting here to discuss with likeminded conservatives, on this subject.


Thus, I don't believe I have not transgressed the above mentioned rules.


Pax


Jeffrey





I am puzzled by RJ's post. I, too, have been courteous and respectful here. I am a former TECie and I should be able to chat with you as long as I don't bite you. 




Bob was trying to be helpful by suggesting a different venue for this thread that might gather broader participation.


I don't see any criticism of content.

“So long as there is squalor in the world, those obsessed with social justice feel obliged not only to live in it themselves but also to spread it evenly.”

http://takimag.com/article/the_ugly_truth_theodore_dalrymple
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jul 31, 2009 - 3:59PM #9
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

Shall we move it to Christian 2 Christian Debates or to Hot Topics?

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Jul 31, 2009 - 9:01PM #10
kurnell
Posts: 309

What is the point.It will receive the usual liberal response, "the Gospels are myth, biased by the early church, and corrupted by translation etc etc.


It seems they are unable to put aside their assumptions and examine the text in an objective way. Most are committed to the idea that God never intervenes, a neo-deism, and anything miraculous was sure to have never happened.


On the other hand, those who hold to biblical inerrancy also come to the text with that assumption, that hinders a true understanding of its intended meaning.


Just my opinion.


Jeffrey


 

Treasure your experience of God,however it comes to you.Remember that Christianity is not a notion but a way.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook