Non Christian Sources

The third section dissects the formation of the New Testament with more historical context and views of other writings defined as Gnostic writing. Bruce explains the spoken words of the apostles carried as much authority as their written words and gives an in depth explanation how the Gospels and Pauline writings were viewed by the Church Fathers. The rest of the section demonstrates the Church Fathers and their views of what was to be considered scripture and the councils that affirmed the inspired scripture.

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 While Christian scholars do not discount the reliability of the New Testament as a historical document, they are also able to point to other historical documents and consider non-Christian writings which support the existence of Jesus.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 story of Jesus' life is meant not only as a biography but also as an example to us as how to live our lives. Through Jesus' example of even everyday activities we can draw from that how to apply his message to our daily lives as well.

Over the course of history, the historical information regarding Jesus Christ has been interpreted by many different individuals and has led to different beliefs and views regarding the existence of Jesus Christ as a real man. Today I will be interpreting this evidence and i will be attempting to answer the question “Was Jesus Christ a real man?”. The evidence I will be looking at to answer this question will be information regarding the context of Jesus Christ, the historical accounts of non-Christian authors as well as the evidence for the Bible which is the main source regarding the life of Jesus Christ.

In Examining the Record section, Strobel supports the historical reliability of the New Testament. He examines the eyewitness evidence, the documentary evidence, the corroborating evidence, the scientific evidence, and the rebuttal evidence. Strobel writes about his first interview with Craig Blomberg regarding the four gospels. Blomberg proposes that the four gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. A hypothesis was made that Matthew and Luke are constructed on Mark which means it’s not likely that Matthew and Luke fully

• Wrote about Jewish wars that have corroborated by other historians and archaeological excavations. Pg. 81

It can be argued that the similarities and differences of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke can cause the reader to either see both of these accounts to complement one another with their different perspectives or that they contradict one another by certain events being mentioned in one birth narrative but not the other. Different aspects of both of these birth narratives such as the way Matthew and Luke treat Mary, the extent to which they use the Old Testament and the audience to whom they are writing to reveals the authors’ agenda as they allow their culture and own personal beliefs to influence what they write. These factors could be argued to have an effect on the historical authenticity of these texts as it could be possible that they could have caused the authors to twist the truth to fit in with their own beliefs.

(2) The textbook also mentions "Jewish Sources" related to early Christianity, citing Josephus as the most important of these. Who was Josephus, what works did he write, and what did he write about Jesus?

The common belief among source critics is that, the Gospel of Mark is the oldest and Matthew and Luke used his gospel along with an unknown source to write their Gospels. Evidence supporting this view make the makes four points. First, the Luke’s Gospel is contains approximately half of Mark’s information and Matthew’s Gospel encompasses almost all of Mark’s views. Second, Mark’s words are used verbatium Matthew and Luke. Third, Matthew and Luke follow the same sequence of events as Mark. Finally, Matthew and Luke sometimes reword Mark’s uncomfortable passages of scripture to allow smooth transitions and ease of understanding.[5]

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.

A lot about the gospels remains unknown to scholars. But the similarities help understand what texts were available to who. The “two-source hypothesis” already depicts and early Christianity where some gospels, such as the Gospel of Mark and the ‘Q’ scroll were easily accessible to enough people that the other synoptic gospels could be based on them. There may be many similarities in the gospels that help pin together the life and death of Jesus, but many of the differences prevent a crystal clear

Barry, John D. James: Simply the Gospel. Not Your Average Bible Study. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014.

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:

I personally believe that eyewitnesses are not reliable since there are a lot of things to take into consideration: bias, memory, character, etc. There is no formula to know whether someone is telling the truth with accuracy about the story that they are telling. For me is all how believable or if they believe the story that they are telling. The bigger and elaborate the story is, the more proof and evidence I require from the person that is telling the story. The more simplistic the story is, more than likely I will believe their story and accepted as the truth; now, if for some reason, I find something off-putting or do not believe their source, then I will not believe or trust his story or give them any type of credit. I truly think that we are fortunate and bless to have multiple gospels’ accounts available to us, and not including the ones that are from the Bible. This is good news for us because this way we compare and contrast with peoples’ testimony that took place at the same place and time. That being said, there are discrepancies between gospels when it comes to their religion’s opinions and the accuracy of the events that took place in history. Now, we must take into consideration of whether the authors knew about one another or if they did not hear about Jesus into later in their lives; however, if both authors are followers of Jesus’s word and they are real disciples, then one should be skeptical about what they say about the gospel.