September 27, 2011
Gospel Minutes
Recently I read the minutes of a meeting where the transcript didn’t
seem to reflect the discussion as I remembered it taking place. I called
another committee member asking, ‘Did I
miss something? Did we agree to that? Do you remember who made that statement?’ I started to ponder the Gospels as if they
were minutes of meetings and although I’m amazed by the text agreement and the
accuracy of recorded quotes, I also have to laugh. I can just imagine some of
Jesus disciple’s later thinking, ‘What
did I miss? I don’t remember Jesus saying that.’
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Gail;
-----And that is precisely why the Gospels stand as eyewitness testimony. There is no record or tradition of any disciple refuting their quotes or events. Of course, Matthew does basically follow the framework of Mark while hanging more meat upon it. But that is exactly what you would expect from an eyewitness. His following Mark’s framework validates Mark’s Gospel. And his additional information validates the story’s reality. So does Luke’s well researched Gospel and John’s, which dealt with the nature of what happened.
-----Every person whom Jesus healed left a child, or a nephew, or a friend knowing the memorable details of it. Human nature is to talk about the extraordinary occurrences of life. And more extraordinary than most would be the stories Lazarus and his family had to tell, Jairus’ daughter and her family, and those who met the saints having come to life in their tombs at Jesus’ death and gone talking into the city upon His resurrection. Extraordinary stories perpetuate not only across areas, but also down through time as fathers and mothers tell amazing stories to children. Even if it were just an amazing event, this fabric of attestation lasts for at least two or three generations.
-----But the birth, life, death, and resurrection of God in the flesh is not just an amazing event. The story is naturally going to perpetuate as long as children grow up and have children. Yet, the details are not going to pass from generation to generation without change, until eventually the story becomes devoid of actuality and embellished to absurdity. The atrocities of the 16th, 17th, and 18th century European wars combined with the heartless cruelty of the Inquisition were laid by history upon that continent like an auger well prepped to culture atheism. But for atheism to grow and spread like a toxic mold, it must break the public mind free of religious mentality spawned by Biblical traditions. Without addressing how atheistic tendency nuances bad-boy behavior within the church, Higher Criticism rode to the battle against Biblical tradition under a false banner proclaiming truth. For you see, as these critics want you to believe, the gospel stories were written for preservation by the third or fourth generation after Jesus’ death. They were by then more embellishment than actuality. “Jesus was a good guy and the resurrection was a nice thought, so, let’s all get together Sunday afternoons and eat apple pie,” went the heart of their thinking.
-----Higher Criticism forgot two critical things. One thing supported the other which eventually hung Higher Criticism without its knowledge. The Gospels weren’t written three or four generations later, as the discovery of ancient texts finally attested. They were written in the Apostle’s times within the eyesight of the best possible critics: those who saw, touched, and heard Jesus. So the truth of the Gospels tested by the best of critics stayed straight the stories passed between friends and family. Such was it that the second and third generations critiqued all later written pseudo-gospels into non-existence. The second thing is precisely what the first states, Jesus was God born, lived, and died in the flesh, raised in the body, now sitting at the right hand of God, very patiently awaiting His forthcoming chat with His “higher critics.”
Love you all,
Steve Corey
Post a Comment