RE: When were the Gospels Written? The External and Internal Evidence.
July 9, 2023 at 1:47 pm
(This post was last modified: July 9, 2023 at 1:52 pm by Nishant Xavier.)
Angrboda: there is wisdom in your post; but I would see it like this: indeed, temporal things can give us some happiness, but cannot make us Perfectly Happy - they were never intended to. Thus, having some, we naturally want more. There is a Natural Desire for Ultimate Happiness in the human being, just as natural as a desire for food; but material things are not the ultimate means to attain that happiness. I saw your post about Xbox, PS etc, and sure I've played them too, who hasn't; and on Computers, we used to play RA2, Warcraft III/Dota, CS, and so much more in College; but those things can never give Perfect Happiness. Temporal Blessings can be given by God, the Generous Giver of Life and All Happiness, as a means to lead us to that Supreme Happiness, but that Perfect Happiness can ultimately be found only in Him, in His Sacraments, in a relationship with Him and Mary our Mother, in this life and the next. If God credibly promises to give us Perfect Happiness in the Next Life, and raises Himself from the dead in order to demonstrate the promise is credible and reasonable and ought to be believed, and testifies to this Truth, by Apostolic Eyewitnesses who chose Death and Martyrdom rather than deny this Truth - which they preached in the Whole World, and about which they were unanimous - that Jesus Christ was God and had Risen from the dead, why should we doubt?
And that brings us back to the Gospel: as for who first taught, clearly and explicitly, about Eternal Life, and the Joy of the Lord that the Saints there share, it was Jesus Christ Himself, as He does in many passages, including the famous Jn 3:16, Mat 25:23 etc. But He not only taught it, as He taught to love our enemies, and forgive them; He did the same on the Cross Himself, and then He rose from the dead, as He had given His Promise to do, to show His Promise of Eternal Happiness was credible; and if He had not Risen, He would not have had One Apostle Left come Easter Sunday Morn, let alone at Pentecost or later; what, do you think men who denied Him and ran away when He was alive, somehow gained, of themselves, and without the Holy Spirit, the moral courage and spiritual strength, to testify to this fact, that He was Risen, and had appeared to them alive, with "Many Infallible Proofs" (Acts 1:3, KJV)? Lol. Impossible. Another criterion, which scholars sometimes call "the criterion of embarasment", was Jewish male disciples would never have said, Jesus Christ appeared to women first, and women were the First Eye-witnesses of His Resurrection, unless in fact it had happened that way; and why? Because, the contemporary Jewish law of the day, like the Islamic law later on, said that the testimony of women witnesses was not credible.
As Sue Bohlin put it: "In a culture where a woman’s testimony was [considered] worthless because she was [considered] worthless, Jesus elevated the value of women beyond anything the world had seen."
As for why Early Dates matter, it's because they show, (1) the traditional authorship is correct (2) The Gospels are credible biographies of Jesus Christ written by His 12 Apostles and 72 Disciples, or intermittent Companions of Apostles; (3) The Gospel record is thoroughly confirmed by Archaeology, as Sir William Ramsay discovered, and which was part of what led him to become Christian; and (4) The Gospel gets early First Century dates and events, including such things as when Pontius Pilate was Roman Governor, Emperor Tiberius was Roman Emperor, etc, too correct to be the product of alleged 2nd or late 1st century writers.
Dr. Craig, among other speakers/writers, generally makes for the Argument for the Resurrection like this: (1) there are about 4 or 5 facts about Christ's Life, Ministry, Death and Burial generally admitted by secular historians, like (i) His Crucifixion under Pilate, (ii) His Death and Burial (iii) His Tomb being found Empty (iv) the Apostles preaching, first in Jerusalem, and then, on Multiple Continents, that He was Risen, and (v) their being Martyred for this Testimony, and (2) the best Rational Explanation for those Historical Facts is, that Jesus Christ indeed Rose from the Dead, just like the Apostolic Eyewitnesses said.
As Anthony Flew said: “the evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”
Thus, in numerous ways, just as God shows us in Nature herself that, through Reason, we can deduce a First Cause of the Universe, as many even Non-Christian Philosophers have done, then, in History, He shows us, that the effects we know to have happened (and which even Atheists generally admit) in the Apostles' Lives, could only have come about if the Resurrection really happened. "That is why, as a Historian", says New Testament Scholar N.T. Wright, "I cannot explain the Rise of Early Christianity, unless Jesus Christ rose from the Dead, leaving an Empty Tomb behind Him".
Let me give an example of why, imo, it is rational/reasonable to believe in Christ's Promise of Eternal Happiness: it may sound financial/mathematical, but it applies to this also. In probability, there's something called expectations. Let's say, if you roll a dice, and get 1 to 3, someone gives you 10 dollars; but 4 to 6, you have to pay 10. Of course, you would be indifferent/neutral, since those are equiprobable events. Now, let's say, for the same 1 to 3, you were promised 10 million dollars; whereas you would lose only 10 for 4-6. Would you play? Of course you would; at least, I think so. Virtually anyone would imo; and that would be a rational decision. The reason is because, the Reward on offer greatly outweighs the Risk. While not exactly analogous, Christ's Promise is like that. Even if one were 50-50 between Christianity and Atheism based on other arguments/principles, because Atheism can ultimately promise us only that we end up in a dead grave, as even Dawkins said once - you'll die, you'll stink, and that'll be the end of that; lol, poor atheism - whereas Christianity can promise us Eternal Happiness, in God's Palace in Heaven, with Jesus and Mary, with Angels and Saints, with singing and dancing, with rejoicing and love, then it's perfectly rational and reasonable to choose Christ's Promise and Christ's Happiness. Not that I personally believe it's only 50-50 of course, but just saying; and imo, anyone who does a serious study of the Gospels, and prays to God or seeks the Truth sincerely, will see it's far more credible Christ was telling the Truth than lying, given that He has confirmed the Truth of His Promise by its known effects in the Lives of His Apostles, as Martyred Eyewitnesses.
God Bless,
Xavier.
And that brings us back to the Gospel: as for who first taught, clearly and explicitly, about Eternal Life, and the Joy of the Lord that the Saints there share, it was Jesus Christ Himself, as He does in many passages, including the famous Jn 3:16, Mat 25:23 etc. But He not only taught it, as He taught to love our enemies, and forgive them; He did the same on the Cross Himself, and then He rose from the dead, as He had given His Promise to do, to show His Promise of Eternal Happiness was credible; and if He had not Risen, He would not have had One Apostle Left come Easter Sunday Morn, let alone at Pentecost or later; what, do you think men who denied Him and ran away when He was alive, somehow gained, of themselves, and without the Holy Spirit, the moral courage and spiritual strength, to testify to this fact, that He was Risen, and had appeared to them alive, with "Many Infallible Proofs" (Acts 1:3, KJV)? Lol. Impossible. Another criterion, which scholars sometimes call "the criterion of embarasment", was Jewish male disciples would never have said, Jesus Christ appeared to women first, and women were the First Eye-witnesses of His Resurrection, unless in fact it had happened that way; and why? Because, the contemporary Jewish law of the day, like the Islamic law later on, said that the testimony of women witnesses was not credible.
As Sue Bohlin put it: "In a culture where a woman’s testimony was [considered] worthless because she was [considered] worthless, Jesus elevated the value of women beyond anything the world had seen."
As for why Early Dates matter, it's because they show, (1) the traditional authorship is correct (2) The Gospels are credible biographies of Jesus Christ written by His 12 Apostles and 72 Disciples, or intermittent Companions of Apostles; (3) The Gospel record is thoroughly confirmed by Archaeology, as Sir William Ramsay discovered, and which was part of what led him to become Christian; and (4) The Gospel gets early First Century dates and events, including such things as when Pontius Pilate was Roman Governor, Emperor Tiberius was Roman Emperor, etc, too correct to be the product of alleged 2nd or late 1st century writers.
Dr. Craig, among other speakers/writers, generally makes for the Argument for the Resurrection like this: (1) there are about 4 or 5 facts about Christ's Life, Ministry, Death and Burial generally admitted by secular historians, like (i) His Crucifixion under Pilate, (ii) His Death and Burial (iii) His Tomb being found Empty (iv) the Apostles preaching, first in Jerusalem, and then, on Multiple Continents, that He was Risen, and (v) their being Martyred for this Testimony, and (2) the best Rational Explanation for those Historical Facts is, that Jesus Christ indeed Rose from the Dead, just like the Apostolic Eyewitnesses said.
As Anthony Flew said: “the evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”
Thus, in numerous ways, just as God shows us in Nature herself that, through Reason, we can deduce a First Cause of the Universe, as many even Non-Christian Philosophers have done, then, in History, He shows us, that the effects we know to have happened (and which even Atheists generally admit) in the Apostles' Lives, could only have come about if the Resurrection really happened. "That is why, as a Historian", says New Testament Scholar N.T. Wright, "I cannot explain the Rise of Early Christianity, unless Jesus Christ rose from the Dead, leaving an Empty Tomb behind Him".
Let me give an example of why, imo, it is rational/reasonable to believe in Christ's Promise of Eternal Happiness: it may sound financial/mathematical, but it applies to this also. In probability, there's something called expectations. Let's say, if you roll a dice, and get 1 to 3, someone gives you 10 dollars; but 4 to 6, you have to pay 10. Of course, you would be indifferent/neutral, since those are equiprobable events. Now, let's say, for the same 1 to 3, you were promised 10 million dollars; whereas you would lose only 10 for 4-6. Would you play? Of course you would; at least, I think so. Virtually anyone would imo; and that would be a rational decision. The reason is because, the Reward on offer greatly outweighs the Risk. While not exactly analogous, Christ's Promise is like that. Even if one were 50-50 between Christianity and Atheism based on other arguments/principles, because Atheism can ultimately promise us only that we end up in a dead grave, as even Dawkins said once - you'll die, you'll stink, and that'll be the end of that; lol, poor atheism - whereas Christianity can promise us Eternal Happiness, in God's Palace in Heaven, with Jesus and Mary, with Angels and Saints, with singing and dancing, with rejoicing and love, then it's perfectly rational and reasonable to choose Christ's Promise and Christ's Happiness. Not that I personally believe it's only 50-50 of course, but just saying; and imo, anyone who does a serious study of the Gospels, and prays to God or seeks the Truth sincerely, will see it's far more credible Christ was telling the Truth than lying, given that He has confirmed the Truth of His Promise by its known effects in the Lives of His Apostles, as Martyred Eyewitnesses.
God Bless,
Xavier.
