Posted by Illuminati on 5/30/2005, 8:10 am, in reply to "Re: Validity of the Bible" There is now an ongoing research into the Koran using Historical-critical methods which is very enlightening. Unfortunately for the Islamic fundamentalists is appears their belief system will undergo further challenges. As they have done since the beginning the true Islamic believers will try to suppress the evidence at all costs. From the Bible itself, we know that Luke used sources: So far the outcome in researching the New Testament has not yielded very much. There is general consensus that Mark wrote first although even that evidence is questioned. To me that appears the most logical conclusion and I generally accept the evidence. According to the early church fathers, Mark was a close associate of Peter's who wrote down the stories Peter told. He didn't try to arrange them in chronological order which some of the eyewitnesses found distressing. However there is no evidence anyone questioned the validity or accuracy of his writings. Those who have studied the synoptic gospels generally believe Luke and Matthew had access to Mark's gospel when they wrote their own accounts. That Luke used Mark's gospel would make eminent sense since Mark's gospel was recognized by the eyewitnesses as an accurate account. Since Luke was acquainted with many other sources and knew eyewitnesses, he expanded and at times altered Mark's gospel slightly to try to make it even more accurate. Although we are not positive Matthew wrote the gospel now under his name, since the early church fathers say Matthew wrote in the language of the people which is usually considered Aramaic, the early church accepted the gospel as accurate and generally attributed it to Matthew. That Matthew an eyewitness would have used Mark's gospel to refresh his memory on events which had occurred when he was much younger is not surprising. Apparently when Matthew wrote his gospel folks weren't as concerned about the chronological order of Jesus' ministry and Matthew doesn't seem to have tried to correct the situation. There is no consensus that John used any sources other than his own memory. An church father who was an associate of John the apostle believed that John was the author of his book even though John didn't autograph it. According to early sources John wrote his book to fill in information he felt was important but was lacking in the synoptic gospels. He did place his work in more chronological order and although he wrote many years after the destruction of Jerusalem showed an intimate acquaintance with the geography of the now destroyed city. Although at first John's emphasis on Jesus God's Son appears different from the emphasis on Jesus the Son of man in the synoptics, there is less than first meets the eye. All the synoptic gospels also make the same claim such as in the following passage: One important contribution of source criticism which is often neglected is what they have not said. They have not claimed that Jesus stories were copied from pagan sources or were plagiarized from pre-existing sources which were extant before Jesus' birth. They have not claimed that Jesus was a fictional character who was invented over thousands of years of mythology. Jesus is recognized as a real historical person who was actually crucified on a cross. He was buried in a tomb which is now empty for some reason. His disciples were actually convinced they had walked and talked with Him after His resurrection and proclaimed the good news of the gospel following those encounters. Even the most skeptical scholars generally admit those things, and that means much. For non-skeptics to make claims is to be expected, but for the most skeptical to admit this is very valuable indeed.
206.206.120.230
Source Criticism can be very helpful provided you actually have information about the sources the writer used. Several modern prophets have been caught "borrowing" material from contemporaries without giving them proper credit. This information has helped those interested in truth know how to evaluate their prophetic authority. The commitment of their followers to truth has been challenged and many have failed the test.
Luke 1:1-4
1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
NIV
It is therefore completely appropriate and useful to try to research from whence came those writings.
Luke 3:21-22
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."
NIV
Also when one realizes that the term Son of man is a reference to Jesus' prophetic role as outlined in Daniel the difference in terminology becomes even less.
Dan 7:13-14
13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
NIV
By calling Himself the "son of man," Jesus was claiming this messianic prophecy for Himself. That he believed He was closely associated with God and was entitled to worship is clearly stated in Daniel. At his trial Jesus again reasserted his authority based on this passage of Daniel.
Matt 26:63-64
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."
64 "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."
NIV
All the gospels are united in proclaiming the truth Jesus was Christ, the Son of God. John just emphasized this part of Jesus' teachings more. John also emphasized God's unconditional love and the tender eagerness God has that we will all be saved.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread