Gospel truth – or a grand conspiracy?

[Easyrider]

If the Gospels and Epistle writers were not being truthful in their depictions of Jesus Christ as a miracle worker, the Jewish Messiah, the Son of God, the resurrected Savior, and so on, then I think someone needs to provide a compelling motive, backed up by some sort of credible evidence, as to why some nine or so different New Testament authors shared such a common vision? What was their motive for a non-Biblical Jesus, considering their lives were on the line either way, and since such a pack of (alleged) lies should be easily refuted by others who knew a “different” Jesus? Why the “grand conspiracy” if Jesus is not who they claimed?

So, two things are asked for here: (1) A credible motive for a non-Biblical Jesus that takes into account the authors putting their lives on the line for an alleged lie (or whatever), and (2) Some kind of credible evidence to support that theory.

[bernee51]

Fulfilled prophecy for one.

This is in the eye of the beholder - hermeneutics

Multiple confirmation for another by identifiable and credible eyewitnesses (Matthew, John, Peter, James, Jude) or investigators (Luke).

naturally all writers with a particular worldview to push are going to self-validate.

Personally, I think it all boils down to the resurrection, which is the crux of the matter.

Which version in which gospel holds the truth surrounding the resurrection?

If Christ is not risen, it's all shattered.

Only for those for whom the concretization of god and the Christ are indispensible. The resurrection itself is a very powerful metaphor. Seen from a mystical POV it is a 'death of the self' along with a realization of the unity of consciousness and oneness with the godhead.

So far, no one has been able to make a real dent in it, from what I've seen.

There have been many critiques...again apologetic hermeneutics are the only support.

[Easyrider]

The resurrection itself is a very powerful metaphor. Seen from a mystical POV it is a 'death of the self' along with a realization of the unity of consciousness and oneness with the godhead.

Well, that particular "metaphor" apppeared, talked, and dined with his subjects for some 40 days after he was resurrected! Gotta love those metaphors!

[bernee51]

The resurrection itself is a very powerful metaphor. Seen from a mystical POV it is a 'death of the self' along with a realization of the unity of consciousness and oneness with the godhead.

Well, that particular "metaphor" apppeared, talked, and dined with his subjects for some 40 days after he was resurrected! Gotta love those metaphors!

There is no proof of this other than biblical. I do not hold the bible as a valid source of history.

[juliod]

There is no proof of this other than biblical. I do not hold the bible as a valid source of history.

I don't think you are getting through. Let me try.

Easy:

The facts about the NT are that none of it as written by anyone who can credibly claim to have been an eyewitness. Paul wrote first, apparently, and as I said, all his works seem to have been composed all at once. He did not claim to have seen a living man named Jesus. The Gospels came later and show a clear process of accretion and modification. They take various well-known features of previous mythical stories (virgin-birth, resurrection, miracles) and graft them onto a person who may or may not have been the same Jesus as written about by Paul.

None of the supposed evidences that validate the Gospel accounts have any support behind them at all. And they would have copious support if they were true. The historicity of Jesus is zero. No evidence exists to show that there was a real person behind the tales in the Gospels.

Additionally, the text of the bible shows significant evidence of faking and forgery. And of course modification to suit doctrinal bias. No one even knows what the original books actually contained. Nor even which of the various books are genuine.

Christianity is at best a castle built on sand.

DanZ

[Easyrider]

I don't think you are getting through. Let me try.

The facts about the NT are that none of it as written by anyone who can credibly claim to have been an eyewitness.

That's not a fact, that's your theory. The earliest church fathers recorded that Matthew wrote Matthew, John wrote John, and certainly Peter was an eyewitness as well. Mark was most likely Peter's scribe, and Luke carefully investigated eyewitness reports and wrote about them.

Paul wrote first, apparently, and as I said, all his works seem to have been composed all at once.

Again, who might have written first doesn't necessarily mean they were the first witnesses. And Biblical scholars don't believe he wrote everything at once, since numerous scholars date his various works at different times. In addition, Luke (author of Acts) records Paul's conversion after he had already persecuted believers for their beliefs about Christ.

He did not claim to have seen a living man named Jesus.

Perhaps not "in the flesh," but he records Jesus' appearance to him on the road to Damascus.

The Gospels came later and show a clear process of accretion and modification. They take various well-known features of previous mythical stories (virgin-birth, resurrection, miracles) and graft them onto a person who may or may not have been the same Jesus as written about by Paul.

This is not documented by fact. The "borrowing from mythical stories" has been refuted by Scholars Nash, McKenzie, and others. See the following link:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_MMM.html

There is also a difference of opinion about when Biblical works were first written:

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm

None of the supposed evidences that validate the Gospel accounts have any support behind them at all. And they would have copious support if they were true. The historicity of Jesus is zero. No evidence exists to show that there was a real person behind the tales in the Gospels.

I recommend you read "The Historical Jesus" by Gary Habermas. I also have these early evidences for you in the following link:

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/hist ... stjesu.htm

In addition, if you want some evidence for Jesus and other New Testament personalities chiseled in first century stone, here's more:

First Century Ossuaries reveal names, etc., of New Testament Personalities:

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

Additionally, the text of the bible shows significant evidence of faking and forgery.

Not from my review. A great many scholars would disagree with that claim. There are some copyist errors, etc., but the New Testament is amazingly redundant, and one cannot make that claim across the board.

Christ and Christianity lives on! And the Bible continues as history's all time best seller! Thanks for your views.

God bless!

[Lotan]

So, two things are asked for here: (1) A credible motive for a non-Biblical Jesus that takes into account the authors putting their lives on the line for an alleged lie (or whatever), and (2) Some kind of credible evidence to support that theory.

This theory of a "grand conspiracy" is a strawman argument, like "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" that apologists think shows the historicity of Jesus.
With the exception of Paul, none of the NT authors were "putting their lives on the line for an alleged lie (or whatever)". The Temple was gone, and the gentile rulers of the diaspora communities in which the authors lived were fairly tolerant of eastern religions. Nor did the evangelists necessarily believe that they were lying. In the absence of any real information about events that they were removed from both temporally and geographically, they turned to scripture to answer their questions about the life of their savior. This is why the OT (actually the Septuagint)contains so many 'amazing prophecies' about Jesus. Other elements can be traced to Qumram, Gnosticism (gJohn) and to Greek religious thought. There is, in fact, almost nothing in the gospels that wasn't pre-existent, including the alleged 'sayings' of Jesus.
Paul clearly did put his life on the line for his beliefs, facing danger both from the diaspora Jews whose 'god-fearers' he poached, and from the Roman authorities for preaching a gospel that was inimical to the Imperial cult. Paul never met a historical Jesus though, nor does he provide any details of Jesus' life, nor does he seem to care about a pre-resurrection Jesus. His savior fits quite comfortably into the mythological world.
The remainder of the NT epistles are late pseudonymous forgeries (including some attributed to Paul), and promote various doctrines that became important to their authors once it became evident that Jesus wasn't about to return any time soon, some of which (as well as material interpolated directly into the 'authentic' writings) directly contradict the earlier authors, giving the lie to the idea of a "common vision" that you assume to be the case.

[Easyrider]

With the exception of Paul, none of the NT authors were "putting their lives on the line for an alleged lie (or whatever)".

Tradition, etc., does not agree with that:

Matthew, the former tax collector, was killed with a halberd (a pike fitted with an ax head) in Nadabah. James was stoned and clubbed to death in Jerusalem. Mark was reportedly torn to pieces by a mob in Alexandria after he told them that their god, a statue carved from stone, was worthless. And Peter was reportedly crucified, upside down, during the reign of Nero. Jude, the brother of James and Jesus, was crucified at Edessa. A good book on all this is "In Search of the Apostles."

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/whatapos.htm

Other elements can be traced to Qumram, Gnosticism (gJohn) and to Greek religious thought.

These are theories, largely unsubstantiated by fact as far as my research shows. For instance, Gnostic salvation came by knowledge and experience, not by Christ and the Word of God. John countered the gnostic doctrine that God cannot become flesh by stating, “And the Word (God) became flesh.” Gnostics had a “secret” knowledge. John evangelized the message of Jesus’s personal salvation to everyone he could. And the Gnostic's idea of a Redeemer is not one who died on a cross for the sins of the world.

There is, in fact, almost nothing in the gospels that wasn't pre-existent, including the alleged 'sayings' of Jesus.

Do you have a source or sources for all the different variety of parables of Jesus?

Paul never met a historical Jesus though…

Many would argue that the Jesus who appeared to him on the road to Damascus was the historical (yet risen) Christ.

nor does he provide any details of Jesus' life, nor does he seem to care about a pre-resurrection Jesus.

This certainly overlooks 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, where Paul describes the actions and quotes the words of Jesus concerning the bread and wine at the Last Supper.

His savior fits quite comfortably into the mythological world.

I think the information in the following link fairly well dispels that notion:

http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/JCMyth_1.html

The remainder of the NT epistles are late pseudonymous forgeries (including some attributed to Paul), and promote various doctrines that became important to their authors once it became evident that Jesus wasn't about to return any time soon, some of which (as well as material interpolated directly into the 'authentic' writings) directly contradict the earlier authors, giving the lie to the idea of a "common vision" that you assume to be the case.

Well, there’s certainly a good many scholars who would disagree with the vast majority of that, including Norman Geisler, Metzger, and a host of others. What few interpolations there are (such as 1 John 5:7 – well known to Christian scholars) aren’t novel ideas, since the basics are taught or contained elsewhere in Scripture.

But I appreciate your time and views.

Cheers….

[Lotan]

Tradition, etc., does not agree with that:
Matthew, the former tax collector, was killed with a halberd ... A good book on all this is "In Search of the Apostles."

By "etc." do you mean legends and fairy tales? I couldn't find any book by that title so I'm going to assume that you are referring to The Search for the Twelve Apostles by William S. McBirnie. Here's what one reviewer had to say...

"Most of McBirnie's book is made up of the post-200 stories, which he usually accepts as true. He also takes seriously every city's claim tho the apostles' relics. In contrast, only the traditions of Peter's grave in Rome, and John's in Ephesus, can be taken seriously."

Doesn't sound like McBirnie is all that interested in a critical evaluation of the source material. Let's get a second opinion...

"...he admitted that the traditions were sometimes so inconsistent and contradictory that it cannot now be determined how all of the apostles died."

If you enjoy fables about the lives and deaths of the 15 (?) apostles, don't miss this one...
The Acts of Matthew and Andrew in the City of Cannibals
Those guys really knew something about "putting their lives on the line"!

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/whatapos.htm

"Church of God"? Isn't that a cult of some sort?
A list of your favorite apostolic legends is hardly convincing evidence of anything.

These are theories, largely unsubstantiated by fact as far as my research shows.

Maybe you're confusing apologetics with scholarship. The idea that the gospels are basically historical is also a theory, largely unsubstantiated by fact as far as my research shows, so what?

For instance, Gnostic salvation came by knowledge and experience, not by Christ and the Word of God. John countered the gnostic doctrine that God cannot become flesh by stating, “And the Word (God) became flesh.” Gnostics had a “secret” knowledge. John evangelized the message of Jesus’s personal salvation to everyone he could. And the Gnostic's idea of a Redeemer is not one who died on a cross for the sins of the world.

Well I always thought that gnosticism comes in a lot of different flavors. From Wikipedia...

"Unlike the synoptic Gospels, elements of Gnosticism have been recognized by some readers in the Gospel of John though it is not generally regarded as a "Gnostic gospel". In order to find passages that refute Gnosticism—by stating that Christ is approachable even as Spirit—readers must turn instead to the First Epistle of John, in passages such as 1 Jn 2:1-2; 3:8, 3:16 and 4:2-3. The earliest copies of the Gospel of John are also from Gnostic sources that include overtly Gnostic writings, implying that John was read by Gnostic groups."

Works for me, but then Wikipedia isn't always the most reputable source. Let's check the Early Christian Writings site...

"...the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles."

There it is again! But what's this...

(Randel McCraw) "Helms adduces evidence that there were divisions over the interpretation of John at an early period, as early as the writing of the epistles 1 John and 2 John. Consider the passages 1 John 2:18-19 and 2 John 7. Helms writes (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 163):

Some members of the Johannine community departed, became a rival sect, over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, an event that leads the author of I John to the certainty that 'this is the last hour.' We do not know for sure who these secessionists were, but as Raymond Brown notes, they were 'not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their position by the Johannine Gospel and its implications' (1979, 107). This seems likely, until we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh,' and 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.' Brown's argument founders on his insistence that 'John exactly as we have it' (108, his italics) was the text used by those who left the Johannine community. Brown refuses to 'exclude certain passages from the Fourth Gospel on the grounds that they were probably not in the tradition known to the secessionists but were added by the redactor (either later or as anti-secessionist revision)' (1979, 109). He admits that many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John' (1979, 109) but continues to write as if there were no revision of the Fourth Gospel."

If you have the time, here is a more detailed article on the subject...
Proto-Gnostic Elements in the Gospel According to John.

Do you have a source or sources for all the different variety of parables of Jesus?

Galilee?
You do bring up a good point. I probably overstated my case when I said "almost nothing", especially considering that I am currently in the historical Jesus camp, which is to say that I think that there is sufficient evidence to say that such a human being existed. If so, then I don't see a problem with the parables originating either with him or his community, I just don't know that there is sufficient evidence to say that they did. I will amend my "almost nothing" to "very very little".

Many would argue that the Jesus who appeared to him on the road to Damascus was the historical (yet risen) Christ.

Yes, and I know a man who hears voices that seem so real that he is compelled to pour lighter fluid on himself and ignite it.

This certainly overlooks 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, where Paul describes the actions and quotes the words of Jesus concerning the bread and wine at the Last Supper.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Psalm 23:5

The 'Last Supper' is described as a Passover meal (although some theorize that Jesus might have actually been crucified at Succoth) and the symbolism of Jesus as the Paschal lamb is obvious enough. The early Christians shared the Lord's Supper which was not essentially different from the communal meals enjoyed by pagan mystery cults, except that the Jerusalem Christians were kosher. It would be natural for Paul to assume that Jesus was the founder of this tradition. For a thorough treatment of this subject I suggest In Search of Paul : How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed.

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. Genesis 14:18

The identification of Jesus with Melchizedek ("King of Righteousness" also "King of Peace") is clear enough today, it would have been even clearer for Paul. See MELCHIZEDEK IN SECOND-TEMPLE INTERPRETATION.

I think the information in the following link fairly well dispels that notion:
http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/JCMyth_1.html

No it doesn't. I never suggested that Paul created Jesus out of bits and pieces of pagan myth. Paul's Jesus operates primarily in a heavenly realm. On the subject of the earthly life of Jesus he is notoriously silent.

Well, there’s certainly a good many scholars who would disagree with the vast majority of that, including Norman Geisler, Metzger, and a host of others. What few interpolations there are (such as 1 John 5:7 – well known to Christian scholars) aren’t novel ideas, since the basics are taught or contained elsewhere in Scripture.

And "there’s certainly a good many scholars who would" agree. Even Augustine knew that 'Hebrews' is bogus! You may as well say "what few interpolations" you'll admit to. I'll leave you with an account of Metzger's treatment of one of those "well known" interpolations...

"… let us look at Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament and read the comment of the Editorial Committee of The Greek New Testament on these words:
"...the logion [i.e., a saying attributed to Jesus], though probably not a part of the original Gospel of Luke, bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin, and was retained within double square brackets, in its traditional place where it had been incorporated by unknown copyists relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel."
Notice that they admit that the words were added by an unknown copyist at an early date (but at least after 225, as we learn from p75). They place the words in double brackets, which according to them means, "enclosed passages which are regarded as later additions to the text, but which are of evident antiquity and importance." Now this means that they are admitting that the words are not original, but are in effect saying, "Well, it sounds like something Jesus would have said, so we will keep it."

[Easyrider]

Tradition, etc., does not agree with that:
Matthew, the former tax collector, was killed with a halberd ... A good book on all this is "In Search of the Apostles."

By "etc." do you mean legends and fairy tales? I couldn't find any book by that title so I'm going to assume that you are referring to The Search for the Twelve Apostles by William S. McBirnie. Here's what one reviewer had to say...

"Most of McBirnie's book is made up of the post-200 stories, which he usually accepts as true. He also takes seriously every city's claim tho the apostles' relics. In contrast, only the traditions of Peter's grave in Rome, and John's in Ephesus, can be taken seriously."

Doesn't sound like McBirnie is all that interested in a critical evaluation of the source material. Let's get a second opinion...

"...he admitted that the traditions were sometimes so inconsistent and contradictory that it cannot now be determined how all of the apostles died."

If you enjoy fables about the lives and deaths of the 15 (?) apostles, don't miss this one...
The Acts of Matthew and Andrew in the City of Cannibals
Those guys really knew something about "putting their lives on the line"!

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/whatapos.htm

"Church of God"? Isn't that a cult of some sort?
A list of your favorite apostolic legends is hardly convincing evidence of anything.

These are theories, largely unsubstantiated by fact as far as my research shows.

Maybe you're confusing apologetics with scholarship. The idea that the gospels are basically historical is also a theory, largely unsubstantiated by fact as far as my research shows, so what?

For instance, Gnostic salvation came by knowledge and experience, not by Christ and the Word of God. John countered the gnostic doctrine that God cannot become flesh by stating, “And the Word (God) became flesh.” Gnostics had a “secret” knowledge. John evangelized the message of Jesus’s personal salvation to everyone he could. And the Gnostic's idea of a Redeemer is not one who died on a cross for the sins of the world.

Well I always thought that gnosticism comes in a lot of different flavors. From Wikipedia...

"Unlike the synoptic Gospels, elements of Gnosticism have been recognized by some readers in the Gospel of John though it is not generally regarded as a "Gnostic gospel". In order to find passages that refute Gnosticism—by stating that Christ is approachable even as Spirit—readers must turn instead to the First Epistle of John, in passages such as 1 Jn 2:1-2; 3:8, 3:16 and 4:2-3. The earliest copies of the Gospel of John are also from Gnostic sources that include overtly Gnostic writings, implying that John was read by Gnostic groups."

Works for me, but then Wikipedia isn't always the most reputable source. Let's check the Early Christian Writings site...

"...the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles."

There it is again! But what's this...

(Randel McCraw) "Helms adduces evidence that there were divisions over the interpretation of John at an early period, as early as the writing of the epistles 1 John and 2 John. Consider the passages 1 John 2:18-19 and 2 John 7. Helms writes (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 163):

Some members of the Johannine community departed, became a rival sect, over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, an event that leads the author of I John to the certainty that 'this is the last hour.' We do not know for sure who these secessionists were, but as Raymond Brown notes, they were 'not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their position by the Johannine Gospel and its implications' (1979, 107). This seems likely, until we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh,' and 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.' Brown's argument founders on his insistence that 'John exactly as we have it' (108, his italics) was the text used by those who left the Johannine community. Brown refuses to 'exclude certain passages from the Fourth Gospel on the grounds that they were probably not in the tradition known to the secessionists but were added by the redactor (either later or as anti-secessionist revision)' (1979, 109). He admits that many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John' (1979, 109) but continues to write as if there were no revision of the Fourth Gospel."

If you have the time, here is a more detailed article on the subject...
Proto-Gnostic Elements in the Gospel According to John.

Do you have a source or sources for all the different variety of parables of Jesus?

Galilee?
You do bring up a good point. I probably overstated my case when I said "almost nothing", especially considering that I am currently in the historical Jesus camp, which is to say that I think that there is sufficient evidence to say that such a human being existed. If so, then I don't see a problem with the parables originating either with him or his community, I just don't know that there is sufficient evidence to say that they did. I will amend my "almost nothing" to "very very little".

Many would argue that the Jesus who appeared to him on the road to Damascus was the historical (yet risen) Christ.

Yes, and I know a man who hears voices that seem so real that he is compelled to pour lighter fluid on himself and ignite it.

This certainly overlooks 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, where Paul describes the actions and quotes the words of Jesus concerning the bread and wine at the Last Supper.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Psalm 23:5

The 'Last Supper' is described as a Passover meal (although some theorize that Jesus might have actually been crucified at Succoth) and the symbolism of Jesus as the Paschal lamb is obvious enough. The early Christians shared the Lord's Supper which was not essentially different from the communal meals enjoyed by pagan mystery cults, except that the Jerusalem Christians were kosher. It would be natural for Paul to assume that Jesus was the founder of this tradition. For a thorough treatment of this subject I suggest In Search of Paul : How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed.

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. Genesis 14:18

The identification of Jesus with Melchizedek ("King of Righteousness" also "King of Peace") is clear enough today, it would have been even clearer for Paul. See MELCHIZEDEK IN SECOND-TEMPLE INTERPRETATION.

I think the information in the following link fairly well dispels that notion:
http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/JCMyth_1.html

No it doesn't. I never suggested that Paul created Jesus out of bits and pieces of pagan myth. Paul's Jesus operates primarily in a heavenly realm. On the subject of the earthly life of Jesus he is notoriously silent.

Well, there’s certainly a good many scholars who would disagree with the vast majority of that, including Norman Geisler, Metzger, and a host of others. What few interpolations there are (such as 1 John 5:7 – well known to Christian scholars) aren’t novel ideas, since the basics are taught or contained elsewhere in Scripture.

And "there’s certainly a good many scholars who would" agree. Even Augustine knew that 'Hebrews' is bogus! You may as well say "what few interpolations" you'll admit to. I'll leave you with an account of Metzger's treatment of one of those "well known" interpolations...

"… let us look at Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament and read the comment of the Editorial Committee of The Greek New Testament on these words:
"...the logion [i.e., a saying attributed to Jesus], though probably not a part of the original Gospel of Luke, bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin, and was retained within double square brackets, in its traditional place where it had been incorporated by unknown copyists relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel."
Notice that they admit that the words were added by an unknown copyist at an early date (but at least after 225, as we learn from p75). They place the words in double brackets, which according to them means, "enclosed passages which are regarded as later additions to the text, but which are of evident antiquity and importance." Now this means that they are admitting that the words are not original, but are in effect saying, "Well, it sounds like something Jesus would have said, so we will keep it."

There are opinions and then there are other opinions.

“This guy has spent years studying the twelve Apostles. With countless trips to the Middle East and Europe and endless years in study, McBirnie has put together a great handbook on what happened to these men. Most of Acts and most of the books about the first century cover the life of Paul. Anything out there about the twelve apostles is scattered throughout out-of-print and boring books that we would never find. Finally, someone has put all of these findings together to create an incredible history of where all these guys ended up.”

And,

“The Protestant theologian who wrote this 312-page book in 1973 provides a highly readable summary of known information about the life and fate of Christ's original twelve apostles plus a number of other important New Testament characters such as Paul, Barnabas and John the Baptist…..McBirnie tries to stay with verifiable facts and sources that are considered historically reliable rather than speculate too much about unknown or unknowable

If you want to say Gnosticism "comes in many different flavors," then let's go ahead and say it comes in traditional Biblical Christianity flavor too then, inspired by God, a la the writings of the Apostle John, who denied basic Gnostic beliefs such these I previous posted: "Gnostic salvation came by knowledge and experience, not by Christ and the Word of God. John countered the gnostic doctrine that God cannot become flesh by stating, “And the Word (God) became flesh.” Gnostics had a “secret” knowledge. John evangelized the message of Jesus’s personal salvation to everyone he could. And the Gnostics idea of a Redeemer is not one who died on a cross for the sins of the world."

And whether you want to cite one theologian as theorizing John 1:14 was "added," (which is hardly widely accepted) there are other passages as well by John that strongly support Christ as being divine. There is also the testimony of a number of early church fathers as to John's authorship, i.e. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John and Clement of Alexandria. Furthermore, the Muratorian Canon (circa AD 170-180), which contains a list of New Testament books compiled in Latin states: John, one of the disciples, wrote the Fourth Gospel. Now many gnostics may have loved it later on, but the evidence for a gnostic writer of the Gospel of John is highly speculative and at odds with the tenets of formal gnosticism.

Regarding the Lord's supper, the antecedents of this in Judaism (Genesis and Exodus on) are clear. Attempts to make this appear to be derived from paganism are highly speculative.

I would also add that a fairly good reason why Paul didn't go into more detail about the earthly life of Christ is that the general story of Christ was most likely fairly common knowledge in traditional Christian circles. Paul certainly discussed his atonement for sin and crucifixion, resurrection appearances, the Last Supper, the "Gospel" of Christ, baptism, Israel's rejection of Christ, and other pertinent subjects along those lines. He also goes into much detail about the Old Testament as the basis for a number of his doctrinal issues.

Finally, yes, the evidence for who wrote Hebrews is speculative. However, the author did cite numerous Old Testament passages (generally from the Greek Septuagint). And the use of the present tense in many passages suggests that the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system were still in operation at the time of writing (before 70 A.D.). So whether Augustine though it bogus does not mean that that was the general concensus. It certainly had to pass the "inspiration of the Holy Spirit" test by men of God to be included in the Canon.

Cheers...

[Lotan]

There are opinions and then there are other opinions.

I'm sure it's a very nice book, but it in the end McBirnie must rely on the pious inventions of religiously motivated hagiographers. They may be comforting stories to tell the little Christian kids at bedtime, but credible historians don't take them seriously, except apologists who desperately need them to support their arguments. You may as well argue that the Robin Hood stories are true based on the persecution of the merry men by the Sherriff of Nottingham. Tradition is fun, but, to take another example, no one seriously believes that the Great Lakes were dug by Paul Bunyan. Besides, there's evidence that things weren't that bad...

"In his debate with Celsum, Origen, as late as A. D. 240-250, said that the number of Christian martyrs was "few" and "easily numbered"

The lack of credible evidence regarding the lives (the gospels are not even consistent regarding their identities) and deaths of the apostles is only one point on which your argument founders. Another would be the late dates when the gospels were composed. I'm sure you'll disagree...

"The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition." from Wikipedia.

I don't have any special reason to disagree with the "general scholarly consensus". Maybe you do.

Finally, someone has put all of these findings together to create an incredible history of where all these guys ended up.”

He got the "incredible" part right.

“The Protestant theologian...

As I said previously, "Doesn't sound like McBirnie is all that interested in a critical evaluation of the source material". This guy is an evangelist (read: apologist), not an historian. Show me where objective scholarship agrees with his 'research' and then you'll have my attention.

If you want to say Gnosticism "comes in many different flavors," then let's go ahead and say it comes in traditional Biblical Christianity flavor too then...

Sure, why not? a lot of people say that gJohn is a 'layered' document so maybe one layer is hostile to gnosticism and another friendly layer counteracts it. Either way, you conveniently ignore the hard fact (from two different sources, no less) that...

"The earliest copies of the Gospel of John are also from Gnostic sources..."

John evangelized the message of Jesus’s personal salvation to everyone he could.

Presumably that was before his retirement in Ephesus.

Regarding the Lord's supper, the antecedents of this in Judaism (Genesis and Exodus on) are clear. Attempts to make this appear to be derived from paganism are highly speculative.

Did someone say they were "derived from paganism"? I know that I didn't. Do you find it necessary to misrepresent my arguments? I said it was "not essentially different". You can argue that if you like. There are archaeological remains of both pagan and Christian communal dining rooms. These are not "speculative" nor is Paul's description of communal meals in Galatians and elsewhere.

I would also add that a fairly good reason why Paul didn't go into more detail about the earthly life of Christ is that the general story of Christ was most likely fairly common knowledge in traditional Christian circles.

Excuse me? Was Paul a missionary to "traditional Christian circles"? Sounds like a colossal waste of time instructing the learned. If Paul had knowledge of Jesus' life and especially of his teachings he would have used them. Everyone knows that.

He also goes into much detail about the Old Testament as the basis for a number of his doctrinal issues.

That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you.

Finally, yes, the evidence for who wrote Hebrews is speculative.

Hebrews is hardly alone in this regard. The scholarly consensus is that almost half of the letters attributed to Paul are pseudonymous, to say nothing of the pastoral epistles. Examples of interpolations (as well as other forms of redaction) in the gospels are legion.

It certainly had to pass the "inspiration of the Holy Spirit" test by men of God to be included in the Canon.

Certainly.