Replies

"Suppose a group of people decided to write memoirs of him--his wife, me, one of his high school students, one of the officers from his military days, and one attendee of his seminars. Would you not say that our memiors would be very unique? "

As Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God then I would expect all the accounts to be the same. I mean do you expect God to inspire the writing of your Father's memoirs. :) Of course not but if it is God's Word don't you think God would have a little better continuity department? Some angel wasn't doing his editing job very well in the first couple centuries after Christ.

"There are very early originals from the first century by Paul, who was in commune with Peter and the original Apostles, and there is Joseph Flavius. Churches just don't raise around a Person so quickly"

Paul is a christian writer and Joseph Flavius gives jesus about two lines of text to jesus and it says . Jesus is a Holy man and does many wonderous things. Thats it hell Flavius writes alot more about John the Baptist even some of the apostles are mentioned but not in conjunction with jesus.

"There are many political references in the New Testament, all of which collaborate with historical accounts of what we know about Pilate, Caesar, Herod, etc. Joseph Flavius. The Gospel of Thomas, Secret Mark, Peter. If Jesus didn't exist, there certainly was a huge cult formed over a nonexistant man and his resurrection very soon after his death."

Well there are many political references on "Gilligan's Island" and thousands of people wrote the Company that produced the show asking them why they didn't rescue the castaways, does this mean that the show is true or that people are basically stupid.

As Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God then I would expect all the accounts to be the same. I mean do you expect God to inspire the writing of your Father's memoirs. :) Of course not but if it is God's Word don't you think God would have a little better continuity department? Some angel wasn't doing his editing job very well in the first couple centuries after Christ. My Bible professor was a Greek expert and he gave special emphasis on the differences in the Gospels, the cultural background, and on the "hard" sayings. To sum it up, he said that a large amount of the original author's personal style got in each of the Books.

You already know what I meant by the analogy of my father's memiors--his wife would write about Dad as a husband; one of his co-workers would write about him as a military officer, etc. In this way, Mark, Luke, Matthew, and the author of the gospel of John each chose to "remember" the events in Jesus's life and His sayings that resounded best with them--and not necessarily in chronological order.

That does not prove that any of the accounts are "incorrect". Would a gigantic timeline in the place of the Gospels change your mind about its divinity? I don't think it would.

Put together, the Gospels give us a full picture of Jesus's different sides, and each has its own "feeling" and portrait of Jesus, something that no encyclopedia entry would capture. You are right, however, that it is very difficult to put together a timeline in Jesus's life from the Four Gospels--they are human memiors compelled by the Holy Spirit with the author's own bias, not encyclopedia entries.

Paul is a christian writer and Joseph Flavius gives jesus about two lines of text to jesus and it says . Jesus is a Holy man and does many wonderous things. Thats it hell Flavius writes alot more about John the Baptist even some of the apostles are mentioned but not in conjunction with jesus.

John the Baptist was still a direct witness and a Christian, and to brush off Paul as a "Christian writer" is like brushing off Holacaust biographers as "Jewish writers". :P

Well there are many political references on "Gilligan's Island" and thousands of people wrote the Company that produced the show asking them why they didn't rescue the castaways, does this mean that the show is true or that people are basically stupid.

True, but one could say the same of any event in the world. My only reason for arguing this with you is to let you know that some of us have given the historical evidence, and the hard parts of the Bible, considerable thought--and we decided to believe in Jesus despite, or because of, the evidence. Many people have the impression that Christians are being played for fools, and that if you showed Christians the "historical evidence" enough, they'd cease to believe (at least if they were being honest with themselves). "Not so" is the only point I'm trying to win. :-)

Again, best wishes, and I hope you are having a wonderful weekend. :-)