Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Who was Jesus anyway?
Options
-
28-08-2008 4:11pm#1The bible is vague in the extreme about who and what Jesus was, and it's just about the only historical record of him even existing. We're told nothing about most of his life, and some of what we are told was written by people who didn't even know him. He seems to have been no more than an upstart/amateur philosopher, at worst maybe even a bit of a lunatic (he would certainly be deemd crazy today if he claimed to be the son of god sent from heaven).
So just how did this man Jesus become what he is today? It seems bizarre that a peasant preacher from 2000 years ago became the cult figure that he now is, with millions believing him to be literally the son of god, especially since so little is known about him. Is this the greatest con job of all time?
Just curious as to what people think is the reason the whole Jesus myth snowballed so dramatically?0
Comments
-
I assume the reports about his immense magical prowess were a rather important element in the transmission of the meme. The fact that he is presented as God Incarnate is also rather attention grabbing. Finally, he promises eternal life and infinite happiness, which is not a small bone to dangle in front of prospective worshipers.0
-
I think it was proved that the man did exist in the particular time and place but like any good fairy tale its all open to Chinese whispers over time.0
-
I think it was proved that the man did exist in the particular time and place but like any good fairy tale its all open to Chinese whispers over time.
I'm not arguing that he didn't exist, we can presume that he did although the historical accuracy of anything from that long ago has to be taken on trust.
A pretty spectacular example of Chinese whispers all the same.0 -
Superstition + time + effort = religionaidan24326 wrote: »So just how did this man Jesus become what he is today?0 -
Some of the outside, non-canonical texts show a different side of this Jesus character. Some of the accounts (myths) in these books greatly conflict with the carefully cultivated image of Jesus which the bible portrays. Some of the descriptions of Jesus in the 'outside' books depicted him as being all too human and conflicted with the 'Divine Jesus' that the bible texts portray. They certainly would have given rise to serious doubt as to the divinity of Jesus if they had been included in the bible itself. For this reason these non-canonical texts were deemed to be heretical. So, the modern image of Jesus among christians is a well crafted piece of public relations propaganda brought about by a carefully selected number of texts. Censorship has done wonders for the image of this mythicized figure.0
-
Advertisement
-
aidan24326 wrote: »at worst maybe even a bit of a lunatic (he would certainly be deemd crazy today if he claimed to be the son of god sent from heaven).
When did he ever claim he was the son of God? It's not in the bible?0 -
Superstition + time + effort = religion
True. It's not easy to see the immediate benefits to those who initially spread the myth though, they could as easily have dismissed Jesus as a fake.
It would be quite something if we could go back in a time machine and bring Jesus to the year 2008 to show him what he has become, and what sprang forth from his humble beginnings. I'm sure he would be beyond flabbergasted.0 -
irishconvert wrote: »When did he ever claim he was the son of God? It's not in the bible?
Sorry I forgot that, although I didn't realise until recently that there is no mention at all of him being the son of god. Why then is he portrayed as such? He didn't have to be, the muslims do not claim Mohammed to be the son of god.
*I'm aware that muslims don't consider Jesus to be the son of god either. Perhaps the claim that Jesus is the son of god was meant to sex up the Jesus myth even more, and became accepted over time.0 -
You must have one of those elusive Chinese Whispers Bibles with all the changes in them.irishconvert wrote: »When did he ever claim he was the son of God? It's not in the bible?
My Bible says:The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 26:63-64)0 -
I'd say Jesus would of been some sort of revolutionary or agitator. Nothing to extreme, but the stories of things he did would of been warped (chinese whispers style) and an aura of mysticism would develope around him.
For example, the raising of the dead could be attributed to a case of catalepsy, which at the time could be mistaken for someone coming back from the dead. Jesus may have passed by the area in his lifetime and through the ages the stories got mixed up and Jesus is credited with performing a miracle of bringing a man back to life. Things like that.
He eventually stood on too many peoples toes and so he had to go. Again, after his death, tales were exaggerated and legends were born. Or at least that's the way I see it.0 -
Advertisement
-
the unfortunate guy who was mistaken for his older brother....
hahahahaha :pac:
(feeling silly.... sorry
) 0 -
I'd say Jesus would of been some sort of revolutionary or agitator. Nothing to extreme, but the stories of things he did would of been warped (chinese whispers style) and an aura of mysticism would develope around him.
For example, the raising of the dead could be attributed to a case of catalepsy, which at the time could be mistaken for someone coming back from the dead. Jesus may have passed by the area in his lifetime and through the ages the stories got mixed up and Jesus is credited with performing a miracle of bringing a man back to life. Things like that.
He eventually stood on too many peoples toes and so he had to go. Again, after his death, tales were exaggerated and legends were born. Or at least that's the way I see it.
I'd agree with you there, and it's possible that stories of his healing the sick could have been little different to what we hear about faith healers today, where people 'remember the hits and forget the misses' to use Carl Sagan's line.
One placebo-effect or purely coincidental 'healing' is remembered and trumpeted as evidence of healing power whereas the other failed attempts are conveniently forgotten. There would doubtless have been some exaggeration aswell.0 -
aidan24326 wrote: »Sorry I forgot that, although I didn't realise until recently that there is no mention at all of him being the son of god. Why then is he portrayed as such?
Hope this clears up the Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God thing:
Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 10:32
"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.
Matthew 10:33
But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
Matthew 11:25
[ Rest for the Weary ] At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
Matthew 15:13
He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
Matthew 16:17
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
Matthew 18:10
[ The Parable of the Lost Sheep ] "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
Matthew 18:19
"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.
Matthew 18:35
"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."
Only somone who thinks He's the Son of God can call God the Lord of Heaven and Earth His Father. Does that mean He was the Son of God? No! It just means that He thought He was.aidan24326 wrote: »He didn't have to be, the muslims do not claim Mohammed to be the son of god.
They sure don't. They think Jesus was a great prophet but not the Son of God. If Christianity is wrong about Jesus being the Son of God, then Jesus was a fruitcake or a liar because He thought He was. So if He's not then the Muslims are a bit off too because they hold this fruitcake/liar in very high reagrd.aidan24326 wrote: »*I'm aware that muslims don't consider Jesus to be the son of god either. Perhaps the claim that Jesus is the son of god was meant to sex up the Jesus myth even more, and became accepted over time.
There were plenty of people in the time of Jesus as there is now that did not accept that He was the Son of God.0 -
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Hope this clears up the Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God thing:
How does those quotes prove anything? I am sure plenty of Christians call God their father, just like Jesus does. How is Jesus saying "my heavenly Father " any different to a Christian today saying "Our Father who art in Heaven", they aren't claiming to be God so how are those quotes from Jesus evidence that he was?
As for the question of who Jesus was, I think he was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who expected the world would very soon come to an end. This fits with the context of 1st Century Roman occupied Judea in which Jews believed God would soon deliver them. Jesus was probably influenced by figures such as John the Baptist and others who were prevalent at the time. He began his own ministry and developed a cult following. He told his followers that they would live to see the end of the world and that they would rule over the coming Kingdom of God.
After his death rumours started to spread about him being risen from the grave. His story was added to by people such as Paul who added Hellenic themes foreign to the Judasim of Jesus and gradually Jesus got further and futher away from true history and more into the realm of theology and myth. The apocalyptic message is seen to be increasingly watered down in the Christian sources as it became evident that he had gotten it wrong but by then there was momentum behind the cult. Jewish followers eventually abandoned the faith as it became clear he wasn't the true Messiah but this didn't matter as the cult had a Gentile following which did not have the same complex understanding of the Messiah that born and bred Jews would have had and the failings of Jesus would have been of no concern to them.0 -
-
I'd imagine because one is plural, the other singular and personal.
I wouldn't have thought that makes any difference. If a Christian says "God is our father", it follows that the Christian is also saying "God is my father". Whether the wording of the prayer is singular or plural shouldn't make any difference.0 -
I'll admit to having a bit of a fixation with this, but it honestly irritates me a bit when people ascribe to Islam a credibility that it doesn't earn. Yes, it seems to me to be a reasonable position to say that Jesus was a man who made a great impact on his followers, to the extent that they seemed to form the opinion that he was God. But Islam says he was considerably more than that, and the Quran essentially says the Gospels are materially correct on the facts of his career.aidan24326 wrote: »Sorry I forgot that, although I didn't realise until recently that there is no mention at all of him being the son of god. Why then is he portrayed as such? He didn't have to be, the muslims do not claim Mohammed to be the son of god.
*I'm aware that muslims don't consider Jesus to be the son of god either. Perhaps the claim that Jesus is the son of god was meant to sex up the Jesus myth even more, and became accepted over time.
As I've said elsewhere, I feel the Quran account of Jesus is essentially incoherent. He's, like, this guy born to a virgin who does miracles. But he's not the son of God. And the crucifixion takes place, as witnessed, only it wasn't him on the cross it was only a double. Not that anyone would have known this until 600 years later when Mohammed gets a vision.
By all means let's question the Christian account of Jesus. But let's not give some kind of spurious validity to something that's even more incredible.0 -
As I've said elsewhere, I feel the Quran account of Jesus is essentially incoherent. He's, like, this guy born to a virgin who does miracles. But he's not the son of God. And the crucifixion takes place, as witnessed, only it wasn't him on the cross it was only a double. Not that anyone would have known this until 600 years later when Mohammed gets a vision.
Actually Islam didn't start the belief that Jesus didn't really die on the cross, this was actually a Christian belief among certain non-orthodox sects dating back to early Christianity. For example there is an early Christian document called the Second Treatise of the Great Seth which proposes a similar theory to that in Islam, Jesus did not die on the cross but Simon of Cyrene. Similarly the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter claimed it was not Jesus on the cross.
These were unquestionably Christian documents written centuries before Mohammed came on the scene. It is likely that these Christians would have been early converts to Islam and would have shaped the Islamic view of Jesus.0 -
Interesting. The full text can be found here. However, the Jesus depicted in it seems to mock the idea of there being one God, and claims himself to be a God, as in where he says I have been in the bosom of the father from the beginning. So is it fair to say that document still envisages that Jesus is God, but sees him more as someone who possessed a human body rather than being born, which I take it is what is meant by I visited a bodily dwelling. I cast out the one who was in it first, and I went in. Its just that the idea of the faked crucifixion is a common element between Islam and the Second Treatise - not that they have much else in common.For example there is an early Christian document called the Second Treatise of the Great Seth which proposes a similar theory to that in Islam, Jesus did not die on the cross but Simon of Cyrene.
I see this is one of these Gnostic writings. Can I modify my opinion and say, on the basis of that small sample, that the Gnostics seem to have produced scriptures that are even more incredible than the Quran. The author was definitely sitting too close to the incense.0 -
Advertisement
-
I see this is one of these Gnostic writings. Can I modify my opinion and say, on the basis of that small sample, that the Gnostics seem to have produced scriptures that are even more incredible than the Quran. The author was definitely sitting too close to the incense.
Of course this is coming from a 21st Century perspective in which we either consciously or subconsciously assume that the Christianity we have today is the correct Christianity and all of the other sects were incorrect. However in the first 4 or 5 Centuries of Christianity it wasn't nearly as clear cut. Gnostics and mainstream proto-orthodox Christians attended the same churches, recited the same creeds and often read the same scriptures. The Gnostics didn't believe that the proto-orthodox Christians were incorrect, just that they weren't seeing the full picture. Many Christians did not regard the Gnostic claims as being particularly incredible and instead found them entirely plausible as Christianity was not yet completely dominated by one single sect which could impose its views on the faithful.
But taking a step back and removing oursleves from the biases that we have developed towards the Orthodox Christian teachings, I can't see how the Gnostic belief is any more incredible or implausible than the Christianity we have today and even if it were implausible then this is no reason to assume that it is incorrect, Christianity is founded on numerous implausible events.0 -
Perhaps, but aren't these writings that arrived later than the Gospels that ended up in the Bible? That said, you'll understand that I've a limited attention span for defending the authenticity of the Bible.Many Christians did not regard the Gnostic claims as being particularly incredible and instead found them entirely plausible as Christianity was not yet completely dominated by one single sect which could impose its views on the faithful.
Well, except that we know that a particular text was ultimately assembled. On reading that Gnostic text I can sort of understand the element of head scratching in one book I read about the Bible, wondering how the Book of Revelation ended up in it as it is similarly incoherent. The Gospels, in fairness, do actually read with a degree of coherence.But taking a step back and removing oursleves from the biases that we have developed towards the Orthodox Christian teachings, I can't see how the Gnostic belief is any more incredible or implausible than the Christianity we have today and even if it were implausible then this is no reason to assume that it is incorrect, Christianity is founded on numerous implausible events.
Christianity is founded on numerous implausible events. But there is at least a claim to be evaluated. I feel Seth is just plain weird. But, in fairness, I take it anyone can read the link above and make their own judgment.
Anyway, this may be taking us a little away from the point that brought me in here. I take it you accept the Second Treatise of the Great Seth doesn't read like a sort of Proto-Quran. Apart from the element of the fake crucifixion, there isn't much of a common view there that I can see.0 -
How does those quotes prove anything?
Not trying to prove anything! Just discussing whether Jesus thought He was the Son of God.I am sure plenty of Christians call God their father, just like Jesus does. How is Jesus saying "my heavenly Father " any different to a Christian today saying "Our Father who art in Heaven", they aren't claiming to be God so how are those quotes from Jesus evidence that he was?
The discussion was about whether Jesus claimed to be the Son of God or not. You've just dragged it off down a road that wasn't intended. So getting back to the discussion of whether or not Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Apart from calling God His Father which presupposes the Jesus viewed Himself as His Son. Here's some more quotes that also support the view that Jesus at least believed He was the Son of God.
John 10:30
I and my Father are one.
John 10: 31-38
"Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."
Matthew 27:43
He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.
Remember we are not trying to prove anyhting here, we are only discussing Jesus' opinion of Himself.
John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
Luke 10:18
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Mark 8
"And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him."
John 18:37
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
John 8:12
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
John 8:23
But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
John 8:18
I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."
John 8:24
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."
John 8:28
So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;
These are pretty outlandish claims for mortal man to make. So if He wasn't who He calimed then He was eithre nuts or a liar. You choose. At least give the Jewish leaders credit. They recognised that no mortal man had the right to make such claims, hence they called Him a blasphemer. What think ye of Christ? A good and wise teacher but not supernatrual? A fraud or a nut?As for the question of who Jesus was,
We are not discussing that. Everyone has an opinion about who Jesus was, but the earliest records we have no matter how far you go back will have Jesus making these kinds of outrageous claims about Himself.I think he was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who expected the world would very soon come to an end.
There are some who think He was an over grown monkey so what difference does it make? We have what's written down about Him in the Gospels and then we have what people think that means.This fits with the context of 1st Century Roman occupied Judea in which Jews believed God would soon deliver them.Jesus was probably influenced by figures such as John the Baptist
How so? Seeing that John the Baptist said of Jesus that he (John) was not worthy to untie the lachet of His (Jesus) sandals?After his death rumours started to spread about him being risen from the grave.
Not rumors, rather it was it was a lie or genuine eye witness testimony. A testimony for which many suffered horrible deaths. Rarely will people do that for the truth never mind a lie.His story was added to by people such as Paul who added Hellenic themes foreign to the Judasim of Jesus
Please show me where you get that from and where in Paul's epistles do you find such themes?and gradually Jesus got further and futher away from true history
So who had the true version of history if later Christians departed from it?The apocalyptic message is seen to be increasingly watered down in the Christian sources as it became evident that he had gotten it wrong but by then there was momentum behind the cult.
No it wasn't. In the oldest extant manuscripts you will find the same message that you say is a watered down version of it.Jewish followers eventually abandoned the faith as it became clear he wasn't the true Messiah
This clarity? Can you pin point exactly in history when this happened please?but this didn't matter as the cult had a Gentile following which did not have the same complex understanding of the Messiah that born and bred Jews would have had
What was so complex about the Jesus that the first Jewish Christians believed in? If anything, because of tradition, Jesus became more and more complex as the centuries rolled on until He is unrecognizable from the Jesus of the New Testament documents.and the failings of Jesus would have been of no concern to them.
What failings? You're hypothetical failings you mean?0 -
Perhaps, but aren't these writings that arrived later than the Gospels that ended up in the Bible? That said, you'll understand that I've a limited attention span for defending the authenticity of the Bible.
They written later than the canonical Gospels, I think the Great Seth was written around the 200s AD, but as I said in another thread the process of elaboration can be seen beginning inside the New Testament and continuing on as the years progressed. The Gospel of Mark, the closest Gospel to the events, is relatively bare when compared to the latest canonical Gospel, John. The story of Jesus gets padded as it is retold over the decades, it is possible that the author of the Gospel of Mark would have been just as bemused if he had read the Gospel of John as you are when reading the Second Treatise of the Great Seth. John presents concepts that were very foreign to the earlier Gospels simply because it was written so late and through the interval the story of Jesus was altered and "improved".Anyway, this may be taking us a little away from the point that brought me in here. I take it you accept the Second Treatise of the Great Seth doesn't read like a sort of Proto-Quran. Apart from the element of the fake crucifixion, there isn't much of a common view there that I can see.
I don't think the Great Seth was a Proto-Quran, but I do think that during the early years of Islam it is quite possible that various non-orthodox Christian communities converted and brought their understanding of Jesus into the Islamic faith.Soul Winner wrote:Everyone has an opinion about who Jesus was, but the earliest records we have no matter how far you go back will have Jesus making these kinds of outrageous claims about Himself.
Well I think that a reconstruction of the postulated Q document, which would have been the very earliest Gospel, would indicate that this did not contain any of the outrageous claims found in the later canonical Gospels.How so? Seeing that John the Baptist said of Jesus that he (John) was not worthy to untie the lachet of His (Jesus) sandals?
Putting the relationship of John the Baptist and Jesus into the context of 1st Century Judaism it is quite easy to see how Jesus would have been influenced by John. At the time it was the case that the spiritually superior mentor would be the person who baptises his spiritual inferior, never the other way around.
As for the Gospels claiming John said he was not worthy to untie his sandal straps, its possible that this is indeed what happened but as I am free of the burden of Biblical inerrancy I can see very good reasons for why that quote may not be historically accurate but rather an invention to solve the problem of why John was baptising Jesus and not the other way around.Not rumors, rather it was it was a lie or genuine eye witness testimony. A testimony for which many suffered horrible deaths. Rarely will people do that for the truth never mind a lie.
Perhaps it was a lie, or maye it genuinely was a simple case of mistaken identity that started a rumour and this became embellished like all good rumours tend to do.Please show me where you get that from and where in Paul's epistles do you find such themes?
Hellenic religions often had a theme of death and rebirth of their gods. Paul was from Tarsus, a city heavily influenced by Greek culture and Hellenic mystery cults such as Mitrasism, Paul could not have avoided the theology of these pagan religions.No it wasn't. In the oldest extant manuscripts you will find the same message that you say is a watered down version of it
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean that each Gospel was altered to remove the apocalyptic theme. What I meant was that that the apocalyptic message that is strongest in Mark had almost disappeared by the time John wrote his Gospel.What was so complex about the Jesus that the first Jewish Christians believed in? If anything, because of tradition, Jesus became more and more complex as the centuries rolled on until He is unrecognizable from the Jesus of the New Testament documents.
I mean that the Messiah had a very particular role in Judaism. When it became clear that Jesus had failed to meet the requirements and that his second coming had not occurred after a reasonable length of time then this would have affected Jewish Christians, who had a Jewish understanding of the Messiah, much more than it would have affect gentile Christians who had an entirely new understanding of the Messiah.0 -
Its fairly obvious that the life of Jesus of Nazareth has been the focus of some heavy syncretism, from not long after he was dead until the Council of Nicea under Constantine. Glimpses into the Apocrypha paint a differing picture of the life of Jesus.
I think if more people knew what went on with the early christian church we'd be at a different stage in this debate. I always get a kick out of telling folks about the Nicean Creed
0 -
He was a time traveller. The first thing the inventor of time travel will do is go back and pretend to be jesus, in doing so he actually becomes jesus. All his space age medicine and gadgets and overall intelligence make him appear to be god like.
The real mystery is how does Santy deliver all his presents in one night?0 -
-
Jesus?
He's just this guy, you know...0 -
Have a read of Patrick Tilley's 1981 book, Mission.aidan24326 wrote: »It would be quite something if we could go back in a time machine and bring Jesus to the year 2008 to show him what he has become, and what sprang forth from his humble beginnings. I'm sure he would be beyond flabbergasted.0 -
Advertisement
-
As for the Gospels claiming John said he was not worthy to untie his sandal straps, its possible that this is indeed what happened but as I am free of the burden of Biblical inerrancy I can see very good reasons for why that quote may not be historically accurate but rather an invention to solve the problem of why John was baptising Jesus and not the other way around.
If it was an invention to solve the problem of why John baptized Jesus that means that the writers of the Gospel accounts were not too concerned about the truth. And if they were not too concerned about the truth then why would they even include that it was John who in fact baptized Jesus? Why not just lie and say Jesus baptized John? Why would these writers who care not for the truth, hurt their story like this? You'll find this kind of intrinsic evidence throughout the Gospels, which in fact strengthens the view that they were simply reporting what they had experienced and saw even if it meant adhering to facts that hurt their story. When I say hurt their story I mean they include facts that might make it harder for readers to believe in Christ as the Son of God, like John baptizing Him.
The Gospel of Mark which as you say yourself was the earliest Gospel also has this kind of hurting. All scholars agree that Mark either wrote his account in Rome or in Egypt. He was writing to Gentiles (non Jews). And in his account he has Jesus refer to Himself as The Son of Man all the time. Now the phrase Son of Man in the environment (Jewish) that Jesus speaking in meant Messiah, but to a Roman or an Egyptian it just meant He was the son of a man. Now if all Mark was out to do was convince people that Jesus was the Son of God even though he knew he wasn't, then why would he hurt his story by having Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of Man all the time? Why adhere to these facts when all you are doing is lying about Jesus anyway? To me Mark is just an honest reporter, telling it as he saw it.
These are the little things that tip the scale towards the position that they were honest reporters and not lying. Liars would not have included that John baptized Jesus and they would not have Jesus refer to Himself as Son of Man instead of Son of God if all they wanted to do was convince people of the latter. So if they were not lying about this then why should we believe that they were lying about anything else in the accounts?0
Advertisement