The Gospels as Myths that Convey Moral Truths Rather than Record of Fact Statement Three – The Gospels should be regarded as myths that convey moral truths rather then record of fact. Question – Explain and assess this claim with reference to the different approaches to the New Testament and evaluate the consequences for Christians of holding such a position. Several of reasons have to be looked to see why was the Gospels written and what effect has it got on the Christian communities. When I have answered this question I can only then know whether the Gospels should be regarded as myths that convey truths then records of fact and what the outcomes has on Christians. Regarding the Gospels there are two misconceptions.
First, he discusses the unreliability of biblical writings, like the gospels of the new testament, stating that "the Gospels cannot simply be taken at face value as giving us historically reliable accounts of the things Jesus said and did", (Ehrman 88), because not only were they written after Jesus 's death, but they were also not from eyewitnesses who 'd personally seen or heard Jesus. Because the sources used in these writings are unknown, and the purpose of them was to, in Ehrman 's words, spread the "good news" of Jesus, the information in them must be carefully analyzed, and compared with other sources, before it can be accepted as true. This leads into one of Ehrman 's main arguments-that because the Hebrew Bible spoke of a messiah who was thought to be the future ruler of the people of Israel, but Jesus did not fit that image because of his pacifistic and compassionate views, Ehrman claims that Jesus 's actions would not have led anyone to believe he was the messiah, ergo he must have told them he was. Another interesting point that Ehrman makes is that some of Jesus 's early teachings differed from the views of early Christians. For instance, Ehrman cites a biblical passage which implies that people who are good and help others can get to heaven, despite the fact that the early church preached that heaven and salvation could only be attained by belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus.
It can easily be seen that Christianity is a religion based on falsehoods and has many intrinsic flaws. They are seen by the fact that the followers of this religion do not conduct themselves in the manner proscribed by their most holy texts. These errors reside in the facts that these same texts are contradictory, and that their very god cannot possibly exist. These errors and omissions are then covered by a vague concept: faith. Work Cited The New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, New Revised Standard Version.
When one reads the Bible, they are reading straight from God. This is the reason that the Bible plays such an important role in the Christian religion. But what is the evidence to prove that these “truths” are in fact, reliable? Can we trust the Old Testament? The Old Testament can be a somewhat controversial part of not only the Bible but also the Christian religion due to its “harsh” rules and laws that are expressed throughout it.
Even though early Jewish scholars, Christian church fathers and various Biblical and theological scholars have questioned the validity of the book it still creates dilemma for the contemporary scholars. The theological though expressed in the book is compatible with the rest of the Old Testament teachings. The canonicity given to the book of Esther presents a status that it is the Word of God and that Esther therefore is a writing which has its own theological framework which requires different approaches and in-depth study on it.
Strobel believed this brought complex theological concepts and historical issues down to an accessible level, where he pieced together hard facts through these interviews. "I confront leading evangelical thinkers with the kind of skeptical objections that are shared by many people" he said in an interview with Zondervan Church Source (2005). In the first section Strobel investigates what he calls the record, where he questions eyewitnesses, gospel accounts and other evidence from outside the Bible. For example asking questions like, "Does archaeology help or hurt the case for Christ?" The second section focuses on the analysis of Jesus Himself.
So the fact that Jesus was not crucified for our sins in the Quran makes Christian doctrines meaningless. Even though both are sacred texts for different religions, both believe in the existence of Jesus. Yet the contradictions of the events of the Crucifixion and Resurrection pose many complications to who the person of Jesus actually was. Due to these complications, some of the beliefs that the people of both these religions hold to be true are put into
Joshua Corpuz Isaiah Nengo Anthropology 1 April 22, 2014 Age Of Reason The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine is about how he believes in a religion or a god. Throughout the book, Thomas Paine talks about how religion is such as Christianity’s bible, doesn’t make sense. He argues that in the bible, the stories that is accounted for and written down are somewhat false. He doesn’t believe in some of the stories in the bible that everyone is deciding to believe. He doesn’t believe that the bible is credited to the word of god, but it is by someone who has just created their own stories and accounts the one and only Jesus Christ.
Then, was Jesus really a proto-Wittgenstein? Did he use parables as an obscure vehicle for speech which alone might bridge the gap for us between our languages and the mystical always outside of it? The Christian Bible, the Hebrew Scripture, The Muslim Koran - or any religion's sacred texts for that matter, will remain controversial but still important avenues for divine communication. Somehow all religious faith lies locked up in non-direct discourse. How, then, can we claim to "hear the word of God or gods," as many claim to do?
In fact, between Jesus and David only two names match, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This could be a real issue for believers, except for the fact that it does not really matter. Joseph was not Jesus ' true father, that is the basis of the Christian faith. This begs the question, why did Matthew and Luke both put this genealogy in if it does not pertain to Jesus in the slightest? Because that is just how it was done, when someone of great importance was written about, the history of that person 's ancestors was also given.