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.
The word gospel simply means good news. The purpose of the gospels? To give it’s readers reason after reason to believe in it’s words. Faith is not without reason, just as reality cannot exist without language. Historically, the very existence of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John merely provide historical evidence of a man of importance that walked this Earth known as Jesus of Nazareth; which is little less historically accurate due to the somewhat differentiating recollections.
We do not know if Jesus actually considered taking Satan’s offers. To say that Jesus was tempted by Satan’s offers is to say that Jesus sinned. John 3:5 says that Jesus came to save us from sin and never sinned himself.2 This Bible passage proves that Jesus was not tempted by Satan’s offers because he was incapable of sin. The third and final part of this objection against the divinity of Jesus says that Jesus cannot be God if the last two parts of the objection are true. The first two parts of this objection and be proven false through sc... ... middle of paper ... ...dditionally, by this statement Jesus was not opposing to his divine nature but instead, simply stating and reassuring the fact he was also man.
For starters, Jesus chose Paul specifically to spread his word and filled him with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:1-19). Alternatively, Shaw claims that “the conversion of Paul was no conversion at all [but] it was Paul who converted the religion” (Shaw 415). This is a bold statement and neglects the fact that a disciple named Ananias was also involved in the conversion, which validates that this was not Paul’s imagination. God, instead, “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures” that Paul would “be an apostle” (Romans 1:1-2). Additionally, others believe that Jesus chose Paul but still suppose Paul taught a different religion.
As mention by Frankforter, the first Christians were Jew and Jesus himself was Jew they relied on the Torah, the Hebrew Scriptures as part of early Christianity. However, Thomas has sayings in his Gospel that challenge this idea. In line 39 it says, “Jesus said, ‘The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of Knowledge and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves” (Gospel of Thomas).
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.
REVEALED AND UNREVEALED There are some simple distinctions in God’s Word that are important to understand in order to learn the Bible accurately. You can classify Scripture into two categories (revealed and unrevealed), based on whether or not a full explanation is given within the specific passage. The unrevealed Scriptures are: • The types and shadows of the Old Testament (Typology) Moses represented the Law and was never meant to enter into the Promised Land. Joshua represented Salvation (as does Jesus) and led the people into the Promised Land (The Kingdom) • The stories and parables of the four Gospels A parable is a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson. Jesus often taught in parables.
However, in the article there is nowhere in the Gospel does Mark mention to himself, the article says, “mark was written down, perhaps even in rudimentary collection, before the writer incorporated it into his gospel. Perhaps most importantly, the gospel itself is anonymous; we receive no hints from its contents about its author.” This definitely contradicts the original idea of the gospel that Mark is the author, but he may be regarded as a completely different person. In addition, Mark was not of the original 12 intimate students of Jesus that was mentioned in the gospel, so who is this “Mark?” which completely takes us to the next notion that maybe Mark “was the son of the woman in whose house the disciples often met and was a companion of both Paul and Peter” especially Peter as Papias said. In addition, this is true; the gospel would be the second hand information about him because there is not an actual eyewitness account, and plus they reject “di... ... middle of paper ... ...lars say it was the first gospel to be transcribed in the bible. In addition, the purpose is because Mathew and Luke seem to have very similar stories from Mark and it seems to be more perfect and fluent version of Mark’s stories.
James the less and Simon the Zealot were minor disciples and therefore not even in the running as the "disciple who Jesus loved." Mathew is associated with another gospel, which reads differently enough from the Gospel According to John to exclude him as the author. James and John are then the most likely candidates. James early death almost certainly proves that John was the author of The Gospel According to St John. Unger's Bible Dictionary gives a detailed background on John.
This passage is not a parable – the method Jesus used to communicate with the people. This passage is one consistent with Jesus explaining a concept to his disciples. The context suggests this saying of Jesus as being ‘insider information.’ It is not that the people did not deserve this information, but they would not appreciate or understand it. The synoptics open this saying of Jesus practically verbatim. Only Luke has Jesus’ command to “take up his cross ‘daily.’” Mark holds the most complete saying of the three accounts, comprised of nearly everything in Matthew and Luke.