#40 The Gospels as History Post #4

I know you're not "looking" for a response, so I will keep it brief. Or not. Brevity isn't my strong suit!

Your link was a good read. Succinct and as reliable as anything else I've read on the subject. It didn't reveal anything I wasn't aware of, however. How true is that of your congregation, I wonder?

The oldest "original" documents we have of the Gospels were written (according to your own research) in the area of 200-250 A.D..

Having just watched a fascinating documentary on Reagan (HBO, ya gotta love it) it reminds me of the basis of my skepticism.

In the 20 plus years since Reagan has left office a cult of personality built upon his burgeoning legend has promulgated to such a level that he would likely win the Republican nomination in 2012 with a broomstick propping him up. Why is this germaine to the topic at hand?

Well, the documents we read as "gospel" are based on documents, that are based on documents, that are based on documents...... I fear vertigo encroaching. (Though it may be the Irish Whiskey).

My same criticism of Genesis will ably apply to the Gospels.

Is it quite possible that the words we study as the Gospel, weren't at all the words of Jesus of Nazareth? Are they in fact the "traditions" held by the followers of Jesus and more accurately the traditions followed by the followers, of the followers, of the followers of Jesus? Add a "follower" for every 10-15 years between 33 A.D. and the date of an existing fragment. This is an interesting discussion. The various "red-letter" moments in the Gospels reveal several different sides of Jesus of Nazareth.

I don't say this to be a smart-mouth. Nor to diminish the spiritual validity of any given line of Scripture. Let me be very clear on this point: the historical veracity of an event does not intrinsically diminish it's value as a spiritual lesson or even a "TRUTH".

That's a really important point for me to make as clearly as possible. When I doubt, with great agitation and mountains of evidence, the "inerrancy" of the Bible, I do so as it is posited as a historical document. The debate on the validity of the spiritual and metaphysical concepts broached in the Bible are NOT what I am attacking.

I will attack those from a different angle......

Now, we discussed you "starting the argument" for once. You're not very good at it though.

It seems you follow the Nazarene rather closely, at least in his more docile moments, and are more likely to turn the cheek than raze the temple. So allow this to be a shot across the bow, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphors and wretched grammar:

1. Do you believe the Gospels to be the literal words of Christ/God, where attributed as such?
2. If so, why? (knowing the historical nature of the books before us).

My friend, this is a lot of fun, and I'm ever grateful for your indulgence. For me, this is an important conversation. But not a dangerous one. For you, it is your life's work and dangerous indeed. I respect you, I love you, and I am honored to call you my brother.

JE