Originally Posted by aa5874

Eusebius, I think, disagrees with you. He thinks or writes that when "Paul" says, "My gospel" he, "Paul", is talking about the gospel of Luke.

Church History 3.4.8 A suprising indication that "Paul" is "Luke".

Originally Posted by eheffa

Hello all,

I realize that this is my first posting so I do feel obliged to introduce myself before I ask my question.

After many bouts of doubt in the past, I have recently come to the conclusion that the Jesus of the gospels is likely a fiction. I have spent most of my life as a committed and pretty vocal defender of the Christian faith but I have also felt compelled by the ideal that one must always value truth over dogma. Conveniently, the truth was always founded in the person of Jesus... But, as I approach my 50th birthday I am discovering that the apologetic arguments for the gospels' historicity and accuracy are seemingly very tenuous. I have read a lot recently & to make a long story short feel that I no longer believe that the Bible is a reliable source of wisdom or insight into the person of god or indeed even ethics. I am prepared to be proven wrong in this assessment but so far I am finding the writings of the skeptics are far more convincing than those of the apologists. Like Sam Harris or Michael Onfray, I am becoming convinced that blind faith is just that: Blind & of little intrinsic value. My sympathies are definitely leaning in the atheist direction

In making my thoughts known to my family & friends who are still believers, I am compelled by their distress to consider any evidence for the gospel veracity that they present. After telling my family that I have little use for Josh McDowell's or Lee Strobel's manipulative half-truths and fallacious arguments, I have been given a few books by NT Wright (He is new to me).

I have been reading his book "Simply Christian - Why Christianity Makes Sense (or via: amazon.co.uk)" and finding the arguments he makes to be quite uncompelling and not supported by any references or outside sources but he makes the following statement that the Gospel of Thomas was written in the second half of second century - "in other words, seventy to a hundred years after the time when the four canonical gospels were in widespread use across the early church." (p. 97)

This in a nutshell, has been a standard argument of apologists i.e. that the early church (60 - 150 CE) was intimately familiar with the canonical gospels and used them as their authoritative guide to the collective understanding of the historical Jesus (HJ). Furthermore, the early church supposedly held the gospels in high esteem as the writings of first person eyewitnesses who were martyred for there refusal to recant their stories.

Having read much of Earl Doherty, Robert M Price & Bart Ehrman as well as Richard Carrier I see a compelling refutation of this idea but I am not sure whether this is due to a desire to refuse or overlook documents which would otherwise affirm the idea that the early 1st century church was unaware of the gospels or even the HJ.

Where do authors like Wright et al get the idea that the early church used or was even aware of the gospels and the HJ? Are there any existing documents to support such a view or has this just been the stuff of wishful thinking and convenient legend?

I guess I should trust the veracity of the skeptic camp's research but can anyone here speak to this issue to help me put these questions to rest?

Thank you for reading this far.

I appreciate any constructive responses or suggestions for further reading.

-evan
(victoria, bc, canada)

Originally Posted by Dirge

According to the Romans, in 49AD the Jews were expelled from Rome for rioting. According to the written account, it was because of Chrestus.

Originally Posted by Dirge

This would have been less than two decades after the crucifixion, and the Jews would have known if he existed or not.

Originally Posted by eheffa

Hello all,....This in a nutshell, has been a standard argument of apologists i.e. that the early church (60 - 150 CE) was intimately familiar with the canonical gospels and used them as their authoritative guide to the collective understanding of the historical Jesus (HJ). Furthermore, the early church supposedly held the gospels in high esteem as the writings of first person eyewitnesses who were martyred for there refusal to recant their stories.

Originally Posted by eheffa

Hello all,....This in a nutshell, has been a standard argument of apologists i.e. that the early church (60 - 150 CE) was intimately familiar with the canonical gospels and used them as their authoritative guide to the collective understanding of the historical Jesus (HJ). Furthermore, the early church supposedly held the gospels in high esteem as the writings of first person eyewitnesses who were martyred for there refusal to recant their stories.

Originally Posted by Huguenot

From the get go, you should distinguish between the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John from the gospel message - i.e. the good news.

The good news was preached about 33 - 35 A.D. in Acts 2. (Psst, the disciples knew the gospel truth first

Originally Posted by Huguenot

The book of the four accounts - the Gospels took quite some time to assemble in IMO, it would have been rare in say 100 A.D..

Now, Paul writes to Timothy and references "the scriptures", but certainly knew the gospel truth - the good news as he preached gainst it and persecuted the Christians before his encounter with the the risen Christ in Acts 9.