When we speak of evidence, we have to define what we mean by evidence. Some people claim the fact scholars and historians disagree as to what happened in the case of the Gospels is sufficient to declare that no evidence exists. This reflects a biased worldview—not evidence!
Jim Walker’s essay Did a historical Jesus exist? argues for the non-existence of Jesus and the fabrication of the gospels. As part of his argument he quotes from "Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, “According to Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the early third century C.E., the average life expectancy at birth came even lower to around twenty-one.” This quotation then leads into a discussion of the possibility of people living longer.
Many people live into their eighties and nineties, providing they survive childhood. Graveyards that have tombstones stating the names and age of the dead buried below them from the 19th century, which I have visited, demonstrate that a significant number of children died before they were five years old. The adults lived close to a hundred years of age, with most having died sometime in their late seventies to late nineties.
Jim Walker’s argument in his essay (Did a historical Jesus exist?) is subtly attempting to condition the reader to disbelieve that it is possible for eyewitnesses of Jesus of Nazareth to have been responsible for the writing of any of the gospels, or to have been interviewed for Luke’s gospel, because they could not have lived beyond their twenties. This is like saying people in Africa, India and Asia do not live beyond their forties because they live a simple life—however, we know this is not true and many live into their seventies or even to a hundred!
Personally, I do not really trust any historian and tend to accept what they say with reservations. They all have agendas that they desire to promote, regardless of whom they quote. A historian would not be a valid witness in a court of law because only eyewitnesses are valid.
As for the Gospels, that they exist and there is an abundance of evidence for an early date is an incredible fact itself. To argue that they are the construct of the Roman Catholic Church results in a false narrative, because that institution did not exist when other groupings were using the Gospels. In part, this is evidenced in the historical claims regarding the Peshitta, which was penned in Aramaic. Paul D. Younan writes:
The Peshitta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples….The Church of the East has always rejected [the Roman Catholic] claim. We believe that the Books of the New Testament were originally penned in Aramaic, and later translated into Greek by first-century Gentile Christians in the West, but never in the East, where the Aramaic was the Lingua Franca of the Persian Empire. We also hold and maintain that after the books were translated into Greek, the Aramaic originals were discarded, for by now the Church in the West was almost completely Gentile and Greek-speaking. This was not the case in the East, which had a Jewish majority (especially in Babylon and Adiabene) for a much longer period. Even when the Church of the East became mostly Gentile, the Aramaic was preserved and used rather than translated into the various vernacular languages of the regions to the East of the Euphrates river.— History of the Peshitta
Moreover, the gospels are the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning the death and resurrection of the Messiah, the Son of God.
The only evidence that we have regarding authorship of the Gospels is internal evidence within the Bible. None of the writers, other than Luke, state why they decided to write their account. Luke’s account is the testimony of what he learned from eyewitnesses.
- Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (Luke 1:1–4)
But because he was not Nero or Domitian (emperors who would have told the truth—of course (?)—and not have been biased) what Luke states is unacceptable to unbelieving historians. These historians only believe what they want to interpret historical events mean. Luke being only known from his historical account of the book of Acts, according to historians who reject anything within the Bible as being true (as well as undeniable archaeological evidence), is not a credible witness of what he himself saw, let alone the fact he objectively interviewed eyewitnesses to establish a true account of what Jesus of Nazareth said or did.
The Gospel of John merely has an allusion to whom may have been the author. This is the person that Jesus loved.
- One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; (John 13:23)
- When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” (John 19:26)
- So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” (John 20:2)
- That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work, and sprang into the sea. (John 21:7)
- Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” (John 21:20)
The idea of Apostle John being the person “Jesus loved” is corroborated in part by the book of The Revelation of Lord Jesus Christ. John was on the Isle of Patmos at the time and tradition attests to this; a fact which is strengthened by the fact that “after the death of John of Patmos, possibly around 100, a number of Early Christian basilicas were erected on Patmos”.
- I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. (Revelation 1:9)
- The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Revelation 1:1–2)
One would think that it would be natural for the most loved disciple to be given the revelation of the Son of God, Lord Jesus Christ, even if it contains symbolism as did the Tabernacle of Moses, which was a copy of what was seen in Heaven (Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 9:23).
The gospel of Mark and the gospel of Matthew have no internal evidence identifying who are the authors. Tradition says that the Apostle Peter dictated to Mark what was written in the Gospel of Mark and a tax collector by the same name was the author of Matthew. The Coptic Church declares:
St. Mark's father died and Peter Simon { St. Peter}, who was married to a relative of St. Mark's father took care of St. Mark and considered him a son: "The Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you and so does Marcus {Mark} my son"; (1 Peter 5:13). Peter Simon saw to it that St. Mark got a good education. St. Mark studied law and the classics.
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica write:
Outside the New Testament, a statement of importance about him is the passage from the Apostolic Father Papias of Hierapolis preserved by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea: “So then Matthew composed the Oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.” The Gospel According to Matthew was certainly written for a Jewish-Christian church in a strongly Jewish environment…
The style of the writing in each of the gospels appears to support the traditional claims of authorship.
Matthew was written to the Jews; a point particularly indicated by the first verse.
- The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1)
Mark was written to people belonging to the world at large. This is evidenced by the fact that the introduction begins declaring the need for the paths of righteousness to be established and this concerns the Creator, the Son of God.
- The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’” (Mark 1:1–3)
Luke was written for people to understand events from a personal perspective within a historical context of being human rather than focusing on a Jewish or Gentile or Universal worldview—as already noted above (Luke 1:1–4).
John differs from the other three (known as the Comparative Gospels) in that it is written by someone who has a revelation of another existence besides this temporal world in which we live that is marred by sin, disease, hatred and death—a similar theme found in the Epistles of John—and presents a theological rationale for the essence of being.
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1–5)
- And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
- No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (John 1:18—compare: Proverbs 8:22-33)
- That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1–3)
Reality is ever present. When we read the Gospels, their internal witness tells us that more important things exist other than arguing over matters which we cannot prove one way or the other. What is more important is where people stand today and what their hope for tomorrow holds—if it ever comes—for only today is real.
Yesterday has always been and tomorrow never comes, unless we speak of death; but even then, as of now, only today is ever-present; for after we cease to exist on planet Earth, the state of life or death will then become our eternal reality.
Once each one ceases to be a biological entity on planet Earth, the real question that each one of us needs to address before we depart is What is my assurance of eternal life?
Surely, humans are not only born to die so they can experience emotion pain in between. Surely, life has more to offer than death and suffering. Since we know both, there is every possibility that once we cross the divide our temporal existence ceases, along with our knowledge of life and death (Deuteronomy 30:15); at which point we will know the state of death or life eternal.
Life unto life makes sense. But the term "living death" is an oxymoron. Likewise, when thinking of eternal justice, we learn of what appears to be another oxymoron, when speaking of an existence governed by death to be consumed by death, yet to be eternally conscious of what the everlasting experience of death truly means (Mark 9:48).
The Gospels Contain A Message That Those Who Love The World Absolutely Detest
When we speak of evidence, we have to define what we mean by evidence. Some people claim the fact scholars and historians disagree as to what happened in the case of the Gospels is sufficient to declare that no evidence exists. This reflects a biased worldview—not evidence!
Jim Walker’s essay Did a historical Jesus exist? argues for the non-existence of Jesus and the fabrication of the gospels. As part of his argument he quotes from "Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, “According to Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the early third century C.E., the average life expectancy at birth came even lower to around twenty-one.” This quotation then leads into a discussion of the possibility of people living longer.
Many people live into their eighties and nineties, providing they survive childhood. Graveyards that have tombstones stating the names and age of the dead buried below them from the 19th century, which I have visited, demonstrate that a significant number of children died before they were five years old. The adults lived close to a hundred years of age, with most having died sometime in their late seventies to late nineties.
Jim Walker’s argument in his essay (Did a historical Jesus exist?) is subtly attempting to condition the reader to disbelieve that it is possible for eyewitnesses of Jesus of Nazareth to have been responsible for the writing of any of the gospels, or to have been interviewed for Luke’s gospel, because they could not have lived beyond their twenties. This is like saying people in Africa, India and Asia do not live beyond their forties because they live a simple life—however, we know this is not true and many live into their seventies or even to a hundred!
Personally, I do not really trust any historian and tend to accept what they say with reservations. They all have agendas that they desire to promote, regardless of whom they quote. A historian would not be a valid witness in a court of law because only eyewitnesses are valid.
As for the Gospels, that they exist and there is an abundance of evidence for an early date is an incredible fact itself. To argue that they are the construct of the Roman Catholic Church results in a false narrative, because that institution did not exist when other groupings were using the Gospels. In part, this is evidenced in the historical claims regarding the Peshitta, which was penned in Aramaic. Paul D. Younan writes:
The only evidence that we have regarding authorship of the Gospels is internal evidence within the Bible. None of the writers, other than Luke, state why they decided to write their account. Luke’s account is the testimony of what he learned from eyewitnesses.
The Gospel of John merely has an allusion to whom may have been the author. This is the person that Jesus loved.
The gospel of Mark and the gospel of Matthew have no internal evidence identifying who are the authors. Tradition says that the Apostle Peter dictated to Mark what was written in the Gospel of Mark and a tax collector by the same name was the author of Matthew. The Coptic Church declares:
Matthew was written to the Jews; a point particularly indicated by the first verse.
John differs from the other three (known as the Comparative Gospels) in that it is written by someone who has a revelation of another existence besides this temporal world in which we live that is marred by sin, disease, hatred and death—a similar theme found in the Epistles of John—and presents a theological rationale for the essence of being.
Yesterday has always been and tomorrow never comes, unless we speak of death; but even then, as of now, only today is ever-present; for after we cease to exist on planet Earth, the state of life or death will then become our eternal reality.
Once each one ceases to be a biological entity on planet Earth, the real question that each one of us needs to address before we depart is What is my assurance of eternal life?
Surely, humans are not only born to die so they can experience emotion pain in between. Surely, life has more to offer than death and suffering. Since we know both, there is every possibility that once we cross the divide our temporal existence ceases, along with our knowledge of life and death (Deuteronomy 30:15); at which point we will know the state of death or life eternal.
Life unto life makes sense. But the term "living death" is an oxymoron. Likewise, when thinking of eternal justice, we learn of what appears to be another oxymoron, when speaking of an existence governed by death to be consumed by death, yet to be eternally conscious of what the everlasting experience of death truly means (Mark 9:48).
The Gospels Contain A Message That Those Who Love The World Absolutely Detest
Jim Walker’s essay Did a historical Jesus exist? argues for the non-existence of Jesus and the fabrication of the gospels. As part of his argument he quotes from "Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, “According to Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the early third century C.E., the average life expectancy at birth came even lower to around twenty-one.” This quotation then leads into a discussion of the possibility of people living longer.
Many people live into their eighties and nineties, providing they survive childhood. Graveyards that have tombstones stating the names and age of the dead buried below them from the 19th century, which I have visited, demonstrate that a significant number of children died before they were five years old. The adults lived close to a hundred years of age, with most having died sometime in their late seventies to late nineties.
Jim Walker’s argument in his essay (Did a historical Jesus exist?) is subtly attempting to condition the reader to disbelieve that it is possible for eyewitnesses of Jesus of Nazareth to have been responsible for the writing of any of the gospels, or to have been interviewed for Luke’s gospel, because they could not have lived beyond their twenties. This is like saying people in Africa, India and Asia do not live beyond their forties because they live a simple life—however, we know this is not true and many live into their seventies or even to a hundred!
Personally, I do not really trust any historian and tend to accept what they say with reservations. They all have agendas that they desire to promote, regardless of whom they quote. A historian would not be a valid witness in a court of law because only eyewitnesses are valid.
As for the Gospels, that they exist and there is an abundance of evidence for an early date is an incredible fact itself. To argue that they are the construct of the Roman Catholic Church results in a false narrative, because that institution did not exist when other groupings were using the Gospels. In part, this is evidenced in the historical claims regarding the Peshitta, which was penned in Aramaic. Paul D. Younan writes:
The Peshitta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples….The Church of the East has always rejected [the Roman Catholic] claim. We believe that the Books of the New Testament were originally penned in Aramaic, and later translated into Greek by first-century Gentile Christians in the West, but never in the East, where the Aramaic was the Lingua Franca of the Persian Empire. We also hold and maintain that after the books were translated into Greek, the Aramaic originals were discarded, for by now the Church in the West was almost completely Gentile and Greek-speaking. This was not the case in the East, which had a Jewish majority (especially in Babylon and Adiabene) for a much longer period. Even when the Church of the East became mostly Gentile, the Aramaic was preserved and used rather than translated into the various vernacular languages of the regions to the East of the Euphrates river.— History of the PeshittaMoreover, the gospels are the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning the death and resurrection of the Messiah, the Son of God.
The only evidence that we have regarding authorship of the Gospels is internal evidence within the Bible. None of the writers, other than Luke, state why they decided to write their account. Luke’s account is the testimony of what he learned from eyewitnesses.
- Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (Luke 1:1–4)
The Gospel of John merely has an allusion to whom may have been the author. This is the person that Jesus loved.
- One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; (John 13:23)
- When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” (John 19:26)
- So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” (John 20:2)
- That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work, and sprang into the sea. (John 21:7)
- Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” (John 21:20)
- I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. (Revelation 1:9)
- The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Revelation 1:1–2)
The gospel of Mark and the gospel of Matthew have no internal evidence identifying who are the authors. Tradition says that the Apostle Peter dictated to Mark what was written in the Gospel of Mark and a tax collector by the same name was the author of Matthew. The Coptic Church declares:
St. Mark's father died and Peter Simon { St. Peter}, who was married to a relative of St. Mark's father took care of St. Mark and considered him a son: "The Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you and so does Marcus {Mark} my son"; (1 Peter 5:13). Peter Simon saw to it that St. Mark got a good education. St. Mark studied law and the classics.The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica write:
Outside the New Testament, a statement of importance about him is the passage from the Apostolic Father Papias of Hierapolis preserved by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea: “So then Matthew composed the Oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.” The Gospel According to Matthew was certainly written for a Jewish-Christian church in a strongly Jewish environment…The style of the writing in each of the gospels appears to support the traditional claims of authorship.
Matthew was written to the Jews; a point particularly indicated by the first verse.
- The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1)
- The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’” (Mark 1:1–3)
John differs from the other three (known as the Comparative Gospels) in that it is written by someone who has a revelation of another existence besides this temporal world in which we live that is marred by sin, disease, hatred and death—a similar theme found in the Epistles of John—and presents a theological rationale for the essence of being.
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1–5)
- And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
- No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (John 1:18—compare: Proverbs 8:22-33)
- That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1–3)
Yesterday has always been and tomorrow never comes, unless we speak of death; but even then, as of now, only today is ever-present; for after we cease to exist on planet Earth, the state of life or death will then become our eternal reality.
Once each one ceases to be a biological entity on planet Earth, the real question that each one of us needs to address before we depart is What is my assurance of eternal life?
Surely, humans are not only born to die so they can experience emotion pain in between. Surely, life has more to offer than death and suffering. Since we know both, there is every possibility that once we cross the divide our temporal existence ceases, along with our knowledge of life and death (Deuteronomy 30:15); at which point we will know the state of death or life eternal.
Life unto life makes sense. But the term "living death" is an oxymoron. Likewise, when thinking of eternal justice, we learn of what appears to be another oxymoron, when speaking of an existence governed by death to be consumed by death, yet to be eternally conscious of what the everlasting experience of death truly means (Mark 9:48).
The Gospels Contain A Message That Those Who Love The World Absolutely Detest
No comments:
Post a Comment