Likelihood of Christmas story? (mythology, Catholic, Abraham, verse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought that most serious Biblical scholars admitted that the birth story was invented later. Mark's gospel is dated as the oldest, and the birth story isn't in Mark.
Most serious bible scholars seem to agree that the gospels are a reliable source of facts about what Jesus did and said, and I think every blessed one of them (therefore) is arguing from a false premise before they even start.
What we actually have in the text is Matthew and Luke - two nativity narratives (and genealogies) that seems to contradict each other and don't work individually. The best efforts to make them work don't stand up - as I have argued in this thread (and a number of others )
To compound this doubt, Mark, as you say, doesn't have a nativity at all and this is another example of what I consider significant omissions of what by all reason, they should at least have mentioned in passing. That is without the Arqtheory of a common Synoptic original text which would require them to write essentially the same story, not two different ones and one without anything.
John adds his own comment that suggests that Jesus not being born in Bethlehem was a problem. John gets over this by hurling abuse, but Matthew and Luke sought to put the matter right by having Jesus born in Bethlehem, by hook or by crook. I'd suggest that Luke did the hook and Matthew did the crook.
So, ballpark dates. The original story of Jesus was going around in Paul's time, 50 -60 AD.
The original synoptic has to be written after the Jewish war so that is later 1st c.
Mark and Luke both show signs of the unamended original text (Mark not having a nativity or resurrection and Luke not having the 2nd feasting -Canaanite woman material) so Mark with the additional material found in Matthew I would place in the early 2nd c. Probably John, is 2nd c too and based on the late 1st c Christian version of the Jesus story, but heavily reworked by the writer and just possible some extra material, perhaps eyewitness as John says.
Finally we have Luke, and Matthew in between John and Luke - using the Q material and Luke using information about Paul to write a biography of his mission.
It's guesses based on a few clues.
Mark - late 1st - early 2nd c AD
John 2nd c
Matthew later 2nd c
Luke early 3rd c AD
and gospel of Peter, being a conflation of the synoptics, later 3rd c AD.
Mark - late 1st - early 2nd c AD
John 2nd c
Matthew later 2nd c
Luke early 3rd c AD
and gospel of Peter, being a conflation of the synoptics, later 3rd c AD.
Boy, Luke must have done everything right to live over 150 years old.
Boy, Luke must have done everything right to live over 150 years old.
Of course, that is the conclusion IF you assume that they were disciples of Jesus (except Luke, who could be regarded as a contemporary who knew Paul but not Jesus (1). But, if you look honestly (rather than through the tinted spectacles of the 17th c apologist Nathaliel Lardner...did you really think that he would bolster your wriggling excuses?... at the gospels, it is clear that they were not associates of Jesus, were not eyewitnesses and are are not reliable reporters of his doings. They are merely fiddlers and amenders (according to their own agendas) of the gospel -version already existing.
As usual your objections are at best a good quip, at worst apologetics rubbish of the most feeble kind.
(1) thus explaining the claim to be 150 years old, but an invalid one for the same reason as the others. The gospel - and Acts - is so flawed that the suggestion of being an associate of Paul is without credible basis. Again, accusation of denial of the obvious reliability of Scripture is a blatantly faith -based inversion of what the evidence indicates.
Most serious bible scholars seem to agree that the gospels are a reliable source of facts about what Jesus did and said, and I think every blessed one of them (therefore) is arguing from a false premise before they even start.
What we actually have in the text is Matthew and Luke - two nativity narratives (and genealogies) that seems to contradict each other and don't work individually. The best efforts to make them work don't stand up - as I have argued in this thread (and a number of others )
To compound this doubt, Mark, as you say, doesn't have a nativity at all and this is another example of what I consider significant omissions of what by all reason, they should at least have mentioned in passing. That is without the Arqtheory of a common Synoptic original text which would require them to write essentially the same story, not two different ones and one without anything.
John adds his own comment that suggests that Jesus not being born in Bethlehem was a problem. John gets over this by hurling abuse, but Matthew and Luke sought to put the matter right by having Jesus born in Bethlehem, by hook or by crook. I'd suggest that Luke did the hook and Matthew did the crook.
So, ballpark dates. The original story of Jesus was going around in Paul's time, 50 -60 AD.
The original synoptic has to be written after the Jewish war so that is later 1st c.
Mark and Luke both show signs of the unamended original text (Mark not having a nativity or resurrection and Luke not having the 2nd feasting -Canaanite woman material) so Mark with the additional material found in Matthew I would place in the early 2nd c. Probably John, is 2nd c too and based on the late 1st c Christian version of the Jesus story, but heavily reworked by the writer and just possible some extra material, perhaps eyewitness as John says.
Finally we have Luke, and Matthew in between John and Luke - using the Q material and Luke using information about Paul to write a biography of his mission.
It's guesses based on a few clues.
Mark - late 1st - early 2nd c AD
John 2nd c
Matthew later 2nd c
Luke early 3rd c AD
and gospel of Peter, being a conflation of the synoptics, later 3rd c AD.
Here is how I see it.
Mark wrote immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Jesus was expected to return quickly. Paul is fanatical on this point. Specifically the return was expected to be before everyone who saw him had died. Paul expected it in his own lifetime. Jesus has now been gone about 40 years. The clock is running down. And on top of that a catastrophic war that was inspired by a messianic movement has cast a deep shadow on messianic expectations.
Mark addresses these problems by having the destruction of Jerusalem and specifically of the Temple to be the sign of the imminent return of Jesus, using imagery borrowed from Daniel. Mark is saying that Jesus will indeed come back momentarily while some witnesses are still alive. This solves the time passage problem and the war problem very neatly.
Matthew wrote around 75-80 CE. He builds on Mark and repeats Mark’s theme of an imminent return, albeit with some bet hedging thrown in. But the problem he is most interested in solving is the competition going on for his community. Matthew’s community are Jesus following Jews who continue to observe the law but consider Jesus the Messiah. The competition is the new rabbinic Judaism, a non-messianic movement initiated by the Hillel Pharisees who survived the war. They are seeking to rebuild Judaism in the chaos following the destruction of the Temple, the heart and soul of Judaism.
Matthew’s approach is to establish Jesus as he undisputed Jewish Messiah. His genealogy and nativity stories are part of an elaborate effort to ‘prove’ exactly that. Among his memes are Jesus as the New Moses handing down a new covenant, but one that builds on historical Judaism rather than replacing it as the Pauline school of thought would have it. Another strong theme of Matthew is Jesus as King of the Jews. In this way Matthew seeks to show that the Jesus movement is the true heir of historical Judaism and not rabbinic Judaism.
Luke, writing around 85 CE or so, is looking to solve another problem – Matthew! Luke’s community consists of Jesus following Gentiles. Matthew’s Gospel has the Jesus movement as being profoundly Judaic including following the letter of the law (like circumcision!). Also the King of the Jews idea is too reminiscent of the terrible war against the Romans that left a million dead and large areas devastated.
Luke retains the Markan theme of Jesus returning soon but throws in even more hedges. But his main theme is to undo Matthew by inverting the themes of that Gospel. Luke’s genealogy is different from Matthew’s in just about every way, emphasizing the universality of Jesus. Luke’s nativity story is also the opposite of Matthew’s in every way, emphasizing the humbleness of Jesus. (And cleverly divorcing Jesus from the Zealot movement that started the Jewish revolt.) Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount delivers a very Jewish message to the people below. (Moses anyone?) Luke’s generic and briefer Sermon on the Plain puts Jesus at the same level as people. Matthew is obsessed with Jesus in Galilee. Luke has Jesus concentrate on going to Jerusalem. These are not merely differences. This is Luke turning Matthew upside down.
Luke having read Matthew and imported or inverted parts of that Gospel also solves the problem of Q. There was no Q.
John was written in stages beginning no earlier than 90 CE and probably later. It is now too late to imagine that Jesus will return in the lifetime of anyone who met him. In fact John presents that idea as a misunderstanding. That was not what Jesus said at all. John totally ignores the Markan theme of an imminent return and barely mentions a return at all. John’s purpose is to present a now mature theology and emphasize a sharp separation from Judaism.
Acts has another approach to solving the passage of time problem. Rather than having Jesus return any day now, it is the Holy Spirit descending at Pentecost on the Apostles that fulfilled that ‘prophecy’. It is very obvious that Luke and Acts were written by the same person. Luke is expecting Jesus to come back relatively soon. Acts postpones that indefinitely. This puts Acts quite a few years after Luke, probably just before John. Recall that John refers obliquely to the Comforter coming soon to the Apostles, suggesting that this idea was already in the air.
The tie in with events of the first century seen in the Synoptic Gospels and the subsequent abandonment of the Markan imminent return theme argue very strongly for first century authorship. In addition there are the sharply drawn pictures of the religious and political situation around Jerusalem ca. 30 CE. Audiences in the second or third centuries would not even have the slightest idea what a Pharisee or Sadducee was or appreciate the apocalyptic fervor of that era. Those distinctions belonged to a much earlier time. Having Jesus die in the era of Pontius Pilate and expected to return in the lifetime of witnesses would make no sense if the initial audiences were in the second or third centuries. And Luke switching horses between his Gospel and Acts is very suggestive of late first century authorship.
Passion of Jesus will never be handed down through the centuries, if Jesus himself did not make it a part of the revelation of his Resurrection. Historians time he never mentioned it; Jesus too meaningless, not enough attention to them. But suppose he had noteworthy matter, the story nailed it hard to be recounted. Scattered too, are a few reminders to the crucifixion in the writings of contemporaries of Jesus; All these people are loathe loathe this barbaric behavior.
Jesus himself, when the resurrection from the dead, led start to narrate the story of the suffering and death to him, and he changed the meaning of it forever.
Mark wrote immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Jesus was expected to return quickly. Paul is fanatical on this point. Specifically the return was expected to be before everyone who saw him had died. Paul expected it in his own lifetime. Jesus has now been gone about 40 years. The clock is running down. And on top of that a catastrophic war that was inspired by a messianic movement has cast a deep shadow on messianic expectations.
Mark addresses these problems by having the destruction of Jerusalem and specifically of the Temple to be the sign of the imminent return of Jesus, using imagery borrowed from Daniel. Mark is saying that Jesus will indeed come back momentarily while some witnesses are still alive. This solves the time passage problem and the war problem very neatly.
Matthew wrote around 75-80 CE. He builds on Mark and repeats Mark’s theme of an imminent return, albeit with some bet hedging thrown in. But the problem he is most interested in solving is the competition going on for his community. Matthew’s community are Jesus following Jews who continue to observe the law but consider Jesus the Messiah. The competition is the new rabbinic Judaism, a non-messianic movement initiated by the Hillel Pharisees who survived the war. They are seeking to rebuild Judaism in the chaos following the destruction of the Temple, the heart and soul of Judaism.
Matthew’s approach is to establish Jesus as he undisputed Jewish Messiah. His genealogy and nativity stories are part of an elaborate effort to ‘prove’ exactly that. Among his memes are Jesus as the New Moses handing down a new covenant, but one that builds on historical Judaism rather than replacing it as the Pauline school of thought would have it. Another strong theme of Matthew is Jesus as King of the Jews. In this way Matthew seeks to show that the Jesus movement is the true heir of historical Judaism and not rabbinic Judaism.
Luke, writing around 85 CE or so, is looking to solve another problem – Matthew! Luke’s community consists of Jesus following Gentiles. Matthew’s Gospel has the Jesus movement as being profoundly Judaic including following the letter of the law (like circumcision!). Also the King of the Jews idea is too reminiscent of the terrible war against the Romans that left a million dead and large areas devastated.
Luke retains the Markan theme of Jesus returning soon but throws in even more hedges. But his main theme is to undo Matthew by inverting the themes of that Gospel. Luke’s genealogy is different from Matthew’s in just about every way, emphasizing the universality of Jesus. Luke’s nativity story is also the opposite of Matthew’s in every way, emphasizing the humbleness of Jesus. (And cleverly divorcing Jesus from the Zealot movement that started the Jewish revolt.) Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount delivers a very Jewish message to the people below. (Moses anyone?) Luke’s generic and briefer Sermon on the Plain puts Jesus at the same level as people. Matthew is obsessed with Jesus in Galilee. Luke has Jesus concentrate on going to Jerusalem. These are not merely differences. This is Luke turning Matthew upside down.
Luke having read Matthew and imported or inverted parts of that Gospel also solves the problem of Q. There was no Q.
John was written in stages beginning no earlier than 90 CE and probably later. It is now too late to imagine that Jesus will return in the lifetime of anyone who met him. In fact John presents that idea as a misunderstanding. That was not what Jesus said at all. John totally ignores the Markan theme of an imminent return and barely mentions a return at all. John’s purpose is to present a now mature theology and emphasize a sharp separation from Judaism.
Acts has another approach to solving the passage of time problem. Rather than having Jesus return any day now, it is the Holy Spirit descending at Pentecost on the Apostles that fulfilled that ‘prophecy’. It is very obvious that Luke and Acts were written by the same person. Luke is expecting Jesus to come back relatively soon. Acts postpones that indefinitely. This puts Acts quite a few years after Luke, probably just before John. Recall that John refers obliquely to the Comforter coming soon to the Apostles, suggesting that this idea was already in the air.
The tie in with events of the first century seen in the Synoptic Gospels and the subsequent abandonment of the Markan imminent return theme argue very strongly for first century authorship. In addition there are the sharply drawn pictures of the religious and political situation around Jerusalem ca. 30 CE. Audiences in the second or third centuries would not even have the slightest idea what a Pharisee or Sadducee was or appreciate the apocalyptic fervor of that era. Those distinctions belonged to a much earlier time. Having Jesus die in the era of Pontius Pilate and expected to return in the lifetime of witnesses would make no sense if the initial audiences were in the second or third centuries. And Luke switching horses between his Gospel and Acts is very suggestive of late first century authorship.
That is the way I see it.
The way I see it is that Matthew didn't base his gospel on Mark because he doesn't make the same errors. Nor does Luke. But I agree that they based their gospels on an original which Mark is close to - apart from the material shared with Matthew that Luke doesn't have. A document like 'Q'. And Luke cannot have copied from Matthew or he wouldn't have written such a different and contradictory nativity - not even Inversion accounts for that.
What does, with no unexplained problems, is that each worked from a common original and added their own ideas and inventions, sometimes incorporating material in circulation like 'Q', Matthew/Mark Decapolis -2nd feasting material, and 'floating' stories like the miraculous haul of fish and the easting of a bit of fish (because they turn up in different places) and perhaps the walking on the water, because Luke (uncommonly) doesn't have it.
This is so obviously the solution, that I wonder why nobody else seems to have suggested it.
P.s What is the big deal? Does it matter whether people think Matthew copied Mark or Luke copied Matthew? I think it does, because understanding the way the gospels were written is a clue to why they were written, who wrote them and thus what the gospels are and what they are not.
This is the Key to understanding the claims about the gospel Jesus, and thus the validity of Christianity. It is of fundamental importance.
Passion of Jesus will never be handed down through the centuries, if Jesus himself did not make it a part of the revelation of his Resurrection. Historians time he never mentioned it; Jesus too meaningless, not enough attention to them. But suppose he had noteworthy matter, the story nailed it hard to be recounted. Scattered too, are a few reminders to the crucifixion in the writings of contemporaries of Jesus; All these people are loathe loathe this barbaric behavior.
Jesus himself, when the resurrection from the dead, led start to narrate the story of the suffering and death to him, and he changed the meaning of it forever.
Thread is about the Christmas story; best save this to easter.
The way I see it is that Matthew didn't base his gospel on Mark because he doesn't make the same errors. Nor does Luke. But I agree that they based their gospels on an original which Mark is close to - apart from the material shared with Matthew that Luke doesn't have. A document like 'Q'. And Luke cannot have copied from Matthew or he wouldn't have written such a different and contradictory nativity - not even Inversion accounts for that.
What does, with no unexplained problems, is that each worked from a common original and added their own ideas and inventions, sometimes incorporating material in circulation like 'Q', Matthew/Mark Decapolis -2nd feasting material, and 'floating' stories like the miraculous haul of fish and the easting of a bit of fish (because they turn up in different places) and perhaps the walking on the water, because Luke (uncommonly) doesn't have it.
This is so obviously the solution, that I wonder why nobody else seems to have suggested it.
P.s What is the big deal? Does it matter whether people think Matthew copied Mark or Luke copied Matthew? I think it does, because understanding the way the gospels were written is a clue to why they were written, who wrote them and thus what the gospels are and what they are not.
This is the Key to understanding the claims about the gospel Jesus, and thus the validity of Christianity. It is of fundamental importance.
I have already started a thread on how the two genealogies show Luke inverting Matthew to refocus the message to a Gentile audience. No one was interested in addressing the points I raised. (https://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...-inverted.html)
It may be time do the two nativity stories in detail but that will take a bit. As with Luke’s genealogy, Luke’s nativity story is exactly opposite to Matthew’s. Not just different. It makes references to Matthew but inverts every theme. That is not coincidentally telling a different story. It is deliberate.
If Matthew and Luke used a common source why did they tell stories so different? If they independently invented the parts that are different, why do they just happen to address the same topics? The genealogies, the nativity stories, the sermon on the mount/plain. No other Gospels or other NT sources address those topics.
In the meantime…
If Matthew and Luke got their material from the same place as Mark, why did they NOT make the same geographical mistakes? Mark shows a rather haphazard understanding of Galilee and the surrounding regions. Matthew seems obsessed with Galilee as if he knew the area well. One source (From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith: L. Michael White: 9780060816100: Amazon.com: Books) put forward the idea that Matthew and his community lived in northern Galilee and claimed that recent archeological evidence supported this. But maddeningly no further details or references were provided. But it does fit in with Matthew’s target audience being Jesus-following Jews and with Matthew’s hatred of Pharisees over and above the other Gospels. The Pharisees rebuilding Judaism on the rabbinic model, Matthew’s competition, were based at Yavneh, virtually in his backyard. So Matthew could simply have known the area better than Mark and corrected Mark. Luke then followed Matthew’s lead in geographical references.
Except for Luke’s Great Omission section, of course. This section appears in Mark and Matthew but not in Luke. This really deserves a thread of its own but I will try to hit the main points on why Luke would want to omit this section.
It is repetitious.
The walking on water and calming the storm episode sounds a lot like Jesus previously calming the storm. In both cases it involves faith being tested. Other weird parts include Jesus sending the disciples across the Sea of Galilee without him as evening is falling. Jesus never did anything like that before. No explanation, no questions, no ‘where do we go and how do we get together again’. Then Jesus walks across the sea in the middle of the night. Again no explanation of why such an unusual thing. It was not intended as a demonstration of miraculous power because Mark says that Jesus intended to pass them by. And when they glimpsed him in the night, in the storm, they thought he was a ghost. A ghost? Sounds like a superstitious lot that Jesus picked. They believe in ghosts but they have trouble believing in Jesus? The rather bare bones presentation of the passage with no explanatory details sounds like Mark heard another variant of the first storm story and threw it in. This would undermine Mark as a legitimate source. No wonder Luke left it out!
The feeding of the four thousand sounds very much like the previous feeding of the five thousand even to the extent of the disciples having trouble believing Jesus can do it. And they are just as amazed when he does. Again it sounds like Mark heard another variant and threw it in. Nothing gained by the repetition but risk of credibility lost. No wonder Luke left it out.
There are several undetailed mass healing scenes that do not further the story. Previous scenes had specific points that were being made. One scene in particular is rather problematic, where a crowd of people are healed by each touching the garment of Jesus. In the original form of this story, one person touches his garment and Jesus feels he power go out from him and turns around to find out who touched him. With a mob of people doing it, Jesus must have been beside himself. Not a good image. Between the lack of any point to these scenes, the repetition of a previous garment touching scene and the ludicrous image that arises from that, no wonder Luke left it out.
The scene where Jesus argues with the Pharisees about man-made rules would be incomprehensible to Gentiles. Not understanding what the elaborate hand washing ceremony is all about, they would have thought that Jesus followers are not supposed to wash their hands before eating. Not a good image. The Corban argument would have gone right over their heads and given the impression that Jewish culture care nothing about parents. Now wonder Luke left it out.
The scene where Jesus calls Gentiles dogs and the Gentile woman agrees with him and begs like a dog … do I have to say it?
When Jesus talks about the leaven of the Pharisees the disciples think he is chiding them for forgetting to bring bread. Gentiles would not get the reference to leaven as a symbol of impurity. The disciples would once again appear as rather stupid. And of course the mention of bread would remind the reader of the immediately preceding repetitious feeding of the four thousand, which also portrays the disciples as dunces. Who picked these guys? Oh right.
Any wonder Luke left out that whole section?
The Great Omission is not an argument for Luke being independent of Mark.
But I have gotten away from the nativity stories. I will rectify that before long.
I look forward to you posting your part 2 of your Luke inverted Matthew theory..though right away, Luke does not invert the feeding of the 5,000, he agreed it; pretty much text -perfect. However, Mark and Matthew produce an almost identical variant slotted into a general tour of the Gentile lands, notably Phoenecia where Jesus is persuaded to heal a gentile after getting a snappy answer but hardly one to overturn what Jesusgod had decided he had to do.
This does not seem to fit the 'Inversion' theory, but it absolutely suits that original text with additional documents in two synoptics but not three. I would also point out that I do not look for examples that could be argued as inversion and ignore all the other that don't fit or even contradict that theory. I can explain (pretty much ) everything in the gospels with the synoptic original with added 'Q' 'P' and the odd fishy tale.
The reason that the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke are so different is that Luke was aware of Matthew and intentionally made his story not just different but in opposition to Matthew. Matthew’s audience consisted of Jesus-following Jews and Matthew stressed Jesus as the distinctly Jewish Messiah and as the King of the Jews. Luke’s audience were Jesus-following Gentiles. The strongly Jewish flavor of Matthew would not resonate with them. In addition, the King of the Jews meme would remind them of the messianically inspired Jewish Revolt that ended so disastrously.
Mary and Joseph
Matthew is concerned mainly with Joseph as the link to the all-important Davidic descent. The angels talk to Joseph telling him what to do. Matthew presents Mary in an entirely passive role. She is found to be pregnant. Joseph marries her. She gives birth, that event being mentioned when the Wise Men come to see Jesus.
Luke gives an elaborate story about Mary conceiving, making her a real person. She is the one the angel talks to, at length. Joseph plays much less of an important role. He is introduced as the man Mary is going to marry who is of Davidic descent. After that it is always Joseph and Mary together with one exception. Several chapters later after Jesus is baptized and Luke gets around to the genealogy of Joseph (radically different than Matthew’s) he tells us that Joseph was thought to be the father of Jesus, reducing the importance of the Davidic link, which would be of less interest to Gentiles.
The Nativity
Matthew tells a story about Wise Men looking for the King of the Jews. They go to Bethlehem where Jesus in fact has been born and present fancy gifts ‘fit for a king’. Herod has every young male child in Bethlehem killed. This is a reference to Pharaoh killing all the male Hebrew children. But Jesus escapes just like Moses did. The family goes to Egypt allowing Matthew to use the “Out of Egypt” Hosea quote both as an additional reference to Moses and something that sounds like a messianic reference in this context. When the family comes back after Herod dies they do not return to their home in Bethlehem but to Nazareth.
Luke opens his Gospel mentioning Herod’s name and never using it again. The expectation is that Luke will tell a nativity story something like Matthew’s. But instead he tells a totally different story. No Wise Men come visit the King of the Jews. Instead humble shepherds visit a humble child lying in a manger. (In a stable!) No trip from the home in Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth. Instead a trip from the home in Nazareth to Bethlehem and back to Nazareth.
To additionally help reverse the King of the Jews meme and its bad odor of the horrible war, Luke has Jesus born during a tax census that caused a revolt and caused the Zealot movement to form. It was the Zealot movement that would later instigate that war. And while the proto-Zealots were sharpening their swords, the angels announcing the birth of Jesus are singing of peace. In other words, Jesus had nothing to do with that war.
Luke, the only other writer to talk about the Nativity, tells a completely different story than Matthew in a way that reverses Matthew’s themes, refocusing the story for a Gentile audience. Luke intentionally inverts Matthew.
Enough for tonight. Still one handed typing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most serious bible scholars seem to agree that the gospels are a reliable source of facts about what Jesus did and said, and I think every blessed one of them (therefore) is arguing from a false premise before they even start.
) 
at the gospels, it is clear that they were not associates of Jesus, were not eyewitnesses and are are not reliable reporters of his doings. They are merely fiddlers and amenders (according to their own agendas) of the gospel -version already existing. 
Passion of Jesus
) everything in the gospels with the synoptic original with added 'Q' 'P' and the odd fishy tale.
