Arguments For The Credibility Of The Gospels

[Cruce]

I've recently been trying to sort through the arguments for and against the historical accuracy of scripture. I'm sure that if one could establish that the testimony in the gospels is true, and that Jesus really did rise from the dead, one could establish that Christ really was divine and founded the Catholic Church.

However everything I read is contradictory. Some books say that all the gospels are written before 70AD because none of them mention the destruction of the temple which Christ predicted while others say that the very earliest gospel was written in the late first century and most of the others are generations removed from Christ. So my questions are:

1. There seem to be many non-Christian references to Christians and Jesus but I haven't found any that specifically refer to the resurrection or any of his miracles. Are there any?

2. Why do some of the gospels contradict each other on basic details? For example the synoptics saying that Christ's ministry lasted one year while John states it lasted three years.

3. How do we determine that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the gospels attributed to them?

[tinytherese]

I found reading "The Case for Christ" to be helpful.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Cruce' timestamp='1298022841' post='2213539']
I've recently been trying to sort through the arguments for and against the historical accuracy of scripture. I'm sure that if one could establish that the testimony in the gospels is true, and that Jesus really did rise from the dead, one could establish that Christ really was divine and founded the Catholic Church.

However everything I read is contradictory. Some books say that all the gospels are written before 70AD because none of them mention the destruction of the temple which Christ predicted while others say that the very earliest gospel was written in the late first century and most of the others are generations removed from Christ. So my questions are:

1. There seem to be many non-Christian references to Christians and Jesus but I haven't found any that specifically refer to the resurrection or any of his miracles. Are there any?[/quote]
Chances are that, if they existed, they would be considered Christian references.
[quote name='Cruce' timestamp='1298022841' post='2213539']
2. Why do some of the gospels contradict each other on basic details? For example the synoptics saying that Christ's ministry lasted one year while John states it lasted three years. [/quote]If you were to ask four of your friends to write a story about your life, would they get all the details perfect? If the four gospel matched perfectly, it might indicate falsehood instead of truth.
[quote name='Cruce' timestamp='1298022841' post='2213539']
3. How do we determine that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the gospels attributed to them?
[/quote]There has been a lot of research into this topic. I don't have enough time to summarize it right now, but I'm sure someone can help me out.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='tgoldson' timestamp='1298050695' post='2213617']
If you were to ask four of your friends to write a story about your life, would they get all the details perfect? If the four gospel matched perfectly, it might indicate falsehood instead of truth.
[/quote]
Get even simpler - have you and your spouse or best friend write an account of a major event you went through together. I can guarantee some of the details will be different, because different things sstand out to different people. That doesn't make one more true than another, just that they're different sides of the story.

[4588686]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1298059867' post='2213651']
Get even simpler - have you and your spouse or best friend write an account of a major event you went through together. I can guarantee some of the details will be different, because different things sstand out to different people. That doesn't make one more true than another, just that they're different sides of the story.
[/quote]

No, but if the accounts were supposed to be Divine Revelation you'd expect there it be a lack out outright contradiction.

[ExCorde]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1298069709' post='2213704']
No, but if the accounts were supposed to be Divine Revelation you'd expect there it be a lack out outright contradiction.
[/quote]

"Divine Revelation" means that God is the main author of Scripture. And in fact, not only Scripture but also Apostolic Tradition. Christianity isn't a religion of a book, like all others where you expect to find a neatly contained and convincing argument - the organized product of merely human scrutiny (no matter how moved towards the discovery of truth) rather than sinful men listening to God and telling others about what they received to the best of [i]their ability[/i]. The latter is the real experience and is what you'd expect if God had indeed revealed Himself to us.

What this means is that Scripture is worth it [i]in spite[/i] of those who wrote it, not so much because of them. The very human individuals inspired to write such authentic testimonies could get some of the things wrong that are [b]irrelevant to the main content[/b]. You could argue why didn't they write more, why isn't there more detail, more stories, why aren't they all alike, why so many references that seem obsolete to us now... You could find any number of things to argue about enough to last your whole lifetime and beyond. Like, why do we celebrate Christmas (Christ's birth) on the 25th of December, is that historic? That's an example of the things that came later and are also pretty irrelevant. People have kept coming up with irrelevant stuff for the last couple thousand of years and still the Church has responded to most with the very relevant claim that salvation matters and that it is through Christ, Who turns us into His mystical Body.

So, if it is agreed that Christ was sent from God, that He Himself was God and that He did so to save you, what will you find to argue about next just so you keep yourself away from Him and His Church? I'll answer that for you in a positive way: what can and will make you stop arguing isn't that you stop wanting to learn more curiosities about the early Church, but that you accept the essential parts and redirect your life accordingly, finally allowing God to "speak" to your conscience. Christ lives and reigns forever.

Edited February 18, 2011 by ExCorde

[Papist]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fea1.asp"]http://www.catholic....04/0405fea1.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0407fea3.asp"]http://www.catholic....04/0407fea3.asp[/url]

I'll second the recommendation for Lee Stroebel's book, The Case for Christ. It's a very easy read.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Papist

[Ephrem Augustine]

The Apostles are consistently portrayed as morons.
That is enough credibility for me.

[JenDeMaria]

[quote name='Ephrem Augustine' timestamp='1298158418' post='2213938']
The Apostles are consistently portrayed as morons.
That is enough credibility for me.
[/quote]

The best argument, in my mind, is that all the apostles died horrible, bloody, painful deaths. If there is no resurrection of the dead, if Chris was not who they believed him to be, why would they have allowed themselves to be tortured and executed? It would've been easier to say "Oh, wait, you're right, the Emporer [i]is[/i] god" and then burn the prescribed incense and go back to commercial fishing.

The word "martyr" means "witness" for a reason.

[Cruce]

[quote name='JenDeMaria' timestamp='1298183786' post='2214061']
The best argument, in my mind, is that all the apostles died horrible, bloody, painful deaths. If there is no resurrection of the dead, if Chris was not who they believed him to be, why would they have allowed themselves to be tortured and executed? It would've been easier to say "Oh, wait, you're right, the Emporer [i]is[/i] god" and then burn the prescribed incense and go back to commercial fishing.

The word "martyr" means "witness" for a reason.
[/quote]


Yes. The transformation of the apostles from cowards to martyrs is a pretty good argument. Such as Peter denying Christ in front of a servant girl during his trial and then going on to preach Christ's resurrection to a whole crowd of Jews in Acts. Witnessing the resurrection of Christ would seem to explain this massive jump in conviction and bravery.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Ephrem Augustine' timestamp='1298158418' post='2213938']
The Apostles are consistently portrayed as morons.
That is enough credibility for me.
[/quote]
I especially like the parenthetical comment about how Peter didn't know what he was saying at the Transfiguration.