UnseenWombat
[14] Master
Yes, I've seen this misconception before. The gospels, except for Luke, are first-hand accounts of the disciples experiences with Jesus. (Source) I'm not sure where you picked up that they weren't. John, though he refers to himself in the third person, was the first one, besides the women, to see the empty tomb. And Luke, (also Acts) contains so many historically verifiable details that even skeptics credit him with at least being a top rate historian.
The gospels were also written very shortly, by historical document standards, after the events which they describe. Three primary forms of evidence appear that prove the Gospels were written by the apostles during the first century:
- early documents from heretics such as Marcion and the school of Valentinus citing New Testament books, themes, and passages
- numerous writings of early Christian sources, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp
- discovered copies of Gospel fragments carbon-dated as early as 117 A.D.
There are also non-christian sources that would lead any rational person to conclude that the writings must have existed at a very early point in the Church's history.
The Pagan Roman historian Tacitus wrote in 115 AD...
"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome... Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."
Several key points should be noted from this passage. First, there was an immense multitude of Christians living in Rome by 64 A.D. Another Roman historian, Suetonius, mentions Christians (denoting at least an amount significant enough to be mentioned) in Rome by 49 A.D. in The Twelve Caesars.
I don't know of any "legend" not based on facts that has grown up so fast, so convincingly, and so far as to inspire "immense multitudes of believers" so far away from its place of origin within a short 32 years. So you also have to conclude that these Christians must have had written documents detailing the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Otherwise, how could they study his teachings? Don't you think they would request written documents? How could they commit their lives to a mere rumor or legend with meager evidence and no written works to study? Numerous eyewitnesses of Jesus' life were still around even in 64 A.D. who could have easily set the record straight had these Christians been proclaiming known lies about the life of Christ. We know of no such opposition.
There's much more I could give you, but I doubt you're really interested in even this much.
"Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life."
Sooo, I hope that sets that straight. If not, (or even if it does) feel free to continue shouting at and insulting me.
