A Survey Of Related Literature

The foundation of the Christian faith is cradled within truth of the virgin birth, life, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As diverse as the world-wide Christian culture is, the truth in the birth and life of Jesus stands without border and language limitations. Just as each individual life story can be adapted to be relevant for a variety of audiences, the birth story of the Messiah was also. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are an example of the well-rounded and diverse narration of the birth story of Jesus—Matthew’s narration spoke to the history of the Jewish people and Luke presented to the citizen of Rome.

It is possible to write on the life of Jesus from the information gathered from the bible. I will be dividing my essay into three parts. In the first part of the paper, I will talk about the nature of the gospels, John’s views vs. the Synoptic, discuss if the authors of the gospels are eyewitnesses and how they used written sources. Also I will talk about the Q source. Then I will elaborate on the topic of how Matthew and Luke were similar. Then I will continue on by discussing how the Old Testament uses Moses, Samuel and Elijah to interpret Jesus, and finally whether or not the Sermon on the Mount happened. In the second part of my paper, I will talk about Jesus’s birth and childhood, his miracles, his resurrection, and what Jesus did to cure people, spirits and how they are interpreted to the prophet, magician and the mad man compared to Saul and Elijah. The final part of the paper I will talk about what Jesus talked about as regards to the Kingdom of God vs. the Kingdom of the Romans and what he intended by speaking of the end of the world. I will also speak of the reasons behind the Romans executing him. My sources for this paper will be the New Jerusalem Bible Readers edition as my primary source and lecture notes from Professor Trumbach.

Some scholars argue that evidence of Jesus of Nazareth 's existence can only be found within the writings of the New Testament. They believe that the New Testament is a biased and unreliable source for the existence of Jesus. They therefore claim that Jesus did not exist. The historical existence of Jesus is necessary to demonstrate the truth of Christianity. While Christian scholars do not discount the reliability of the New Testament as a historical document, they are also able to point to other historical documents and consider non-Christian writings which support the existence of Jesus. In this paper I will argue that Jesus the Nazarene was an actual, historical person and that this can be demonstrated through extra-Biblical resources.

The most rebutted aspect of the work done by the scholars was their idiosyncrasy to equate “unverifiable” with “unauthentic.” Most scholars who study the elements attribute to the life of Jesus stand on common ground when it comes to the realization that many of the sayings and deeds associated to Jesus in the Gospels lack sufficient evidence to establish authenticity. However, to many scholars insufficient evidence means an element cannot be verified, and therefore should not be deemed as historical. In contrast, the Jesus Seminar went beyond this scope and maintained that Jesus did not say or did not do things that cannot be authenticated by evidence. For example, it is widely accepted that there is very little evidence to support whether or not Jesus was born from his virgin mother, Mary. As a result, this element of his life has just been something that one would believe on the foundation of religious faith rather than historical science. However, the Jesus Seminar applied a post-Enlightenment historical scientific view to this element in order to determine authenticity. Under this assessment, they determined not only what is confirmable but what also is scientifically possible. Therefore, the scholars deemed the virgin birth as non-historical, concluding that Jesus had been conceived through normal sexual intercourse between a male and female because it fit the paradigm known today. This stance held by the Jesus Seminar “turn[s] a corner in the traditional understanding of the relationship that faith and philosophy bear to science and history” (Powell, 115). For this reason, I reject the integrity of their work. I believe faith and philosophy should be kept separate of science and history, unless the two aim to support one another. Rescinding concepts of faith simply because they do fall within current scientific boundaries is illegitimate. The major flaw of the Jesus Seminar is their

The theories of the process and order of writing of the Gospels, the authors of the textbook conclude that “Q” is not a reliable source. The authors believe that relying on “Q” is dangerous; believing that the gospel that has not been found can be a reliable source for the description of Jesus.

including the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ” ( Moran 191 ). This made

N.T. Wright releases “How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels” with the affirmation that the church has come to emphasis almost exclusively on Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection. Although, the gospels devote the majority of their time on Jesus’ life. Jesus’s life, death, resurrection and rise did not hint the end of the old Israel story, but redirected it further to a worldwide effort of adaptation. Wright addresses several New Testament documented interpreters who present the gospels as simply “the prognosis of early Christian faith, reflecting the disputes and predicaments of the early church,” something Wright calls a “half-truth”. Wright argues that notwithstanding the gospels countless differences, none of

The resurrection of Christ is an event that if true provides good evidence that Jesus is truly the son of God. Christ 's resurrection is an event which only God himself could perform. This resurrection is far different from the everyday resurrection by medical equipment. This resurrection is an eternal

After reading “Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time” by Marcus J. Borg I realized that I myself have to find ways in loving and embracing Jesus differently than how I used too. This book is how the author addresses the yearnings of those who want a fully contemporary faith that welcomes rather than oppresses our critical intelligence and openness to the best of historical scholarship. The author shows how a rigorous examination of historical findings can lead to a new faith in Christ, one that is critical and at the same time sustaining. The author shows how an understanding of the historical Jesus can actually lead to a more Christian life. He looked at the major findings of modern Jesus scholarship from the perspective of faith, bringing

The purpose of the paper is to differentiate between Christ of faith and Jesus of history. New Testament biblical scholars from the 19th Century have been preoccupied by the notion of Christ of faith versus Jesus of History. Jesus of history can be described as the quest for historical Jesus, while the Christ of Faith is the Christ of Christian belief either through the Church or historically. Some traditions even went ahead to argue that the Jesus of History could never be found and therefore the Christ of faith is the only way forward for Christians. On the other hand, those who have been promoting the Jesus of History have often assumed that the historical Jesus is much superior as compared to the Christ of Faith. Despite the key differences between Christ of faith and the historical Jesus, both these aspect have an implication for Western Christianity.

When judging the historical reliability of the gospels many factors come into paly. In judging the historical reliability of the Gospels the kind of the gospels is important in understanding the intentions of the writers concerning the historical value of the text. When ranking the following sayings of Jesus:

Is Jesus God? Well, we can explore that in many ways. One of the ways that we can know if he is God, is if we know whether not he rose from the dead. And from this paper I would like to address a question, did Jesus truly rise from the dead? This paper will prove Jesus’ resurrection by refuting the objections of the reliability of Jesus’ biographies and the swoon and stolen body theory, and by evidence from the Bible.

Jesus’ directness in proclaiming himself divine, and that he is to be devoutly followed, is one of the key themes that make the Gospel of John and the account of Lazarus’ resurrection comparatively unique. The role of narrative criticism is to take such factors and differences between narratives into account, as well as to analyze texts individually and in varying contexts, in order to better understand them. The resurrection of Lazarus is situated in the Gospel of John after the accounts of Jesus’ public ministry and just before he is crucified and resurrected. As such, it provides a dramatic and pivotal narrative function of illustrating one of the greatest of Jesus’ benevolent, supernatural feats (resurrection) just before his own death and resurrection, with Jesus proclaiming that all who believe in Him will similarly be resurrected in the form of eternal life (John 11:25-26). Moreover, Jesus doesn’t just resurrect Lazarus, he does so in dramatic fashion, in front of a crowd: “he cried with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out’”

This essay will show contrasts in views on the Gospel of John regarding authorship,dates, and the relationship between John's Gospel and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Some comparison of thought, concerning composition and life setting, will also be presented.

The word "gospel" is a translation of the Greek word "euangelion" which means "good news. The first three books in the New Testament (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels (from Greek synoptikos, "seen together") They bear greater similarity to each other than any of the other gospels in the New Testament. Along with these similarities come some differences among the gospels, suggesting that each gospel was written for a specific audience and for a specific purpose. This paper will examine the resurrection of Jesus, while identifying the significant differences between Mark, Matthew and Luke. This paper will also analyze the differences to suggest the prominent theological perspective each gospel author