Ian Boyne | Are The Gospels Reliable?

Ian Boyne invites your comments:

Ian Boyne | Are The Gospels Reliable?

It's that time of the year when the big American media focus on Christianity, alleged contradictions in the Gospels, and the controversy surrounding whether the Bible is really true. Often, the discussion is unbalanced, sensational, and less than fully informed.

There are certain regularly regurgitated views that have not, by any means, been proven beyond reasonable doubt, yet they are taken as dogma in liberal biblical scholarship. Take the view, heard frequently expounded by Mutabaruka on The Cutting Edge, that the Gospels were originally anonymous. You will hear Muta asserting with absolute dogmatism many nights: "Dem seh Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John wrote the Gospels, and Christians in Jamaica don't even know seh that when dem book dey did write, no name never deh pon dem."

Well, that same view is written in perfect English and intoned with impeccable diction every day in scholarly circles. But is it beyond reasonable doubt? And how would one prove that the Gospels originally had no authors' names on them? Well, manuscript evidence would help. If we found manuscripts dated early that were anonymous, that would constitute proof. Yet do you know, despite the fact that Muta's view is, indeed, held by many scholars, that there is absolutely no manuscript evidence that the Gospels were originally anonymous? The earliest Gospel manuscripts discovered had the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

To assert that they were added later without supplying proof is intellectually irresponsible. Often, it is a theory that determines a particular viewpoint, not empirical evidence. If the dominant view is that the Gospels are folklore rather than biographical literature, one simply infers that the Gospels were likely anonymous in line with that genre of literature. So in that case, it is the theory that determines the view, not the facts determining the theory.

All the extant copies of the New Testament Gospels date from the second century. The earliest (Papyrus 4) has the title, 'The Gospel According to Matthew'. The oldest Greek copy of the Gospel of Mark, Codex Siniaticus, begins with the title 'The Gospel cording to Mark'. It is felt by liberal scholars that the reason why the anonymous Gospels were later changed to ones with names we know today is because of the need to establish authenticity.

You see, when early Christians began to face competition with different views of Jesus being circulated in the other Gospels about him (Marcionite, Ebionite, and Gnostic), it was necessary to attach the names of apostles or their disciples/companions to our four Gospels to establish their superiority. Remember, liberal scholars see the Bible as theological and political documents, not historical accounts. Their concern is not so much historical accuracy, but faith.

So in the face of the Gospels that eventually lost out, early Christians attached apostolic names to the Gospels. Well, let's test that theory for plausibility. First, why wouldn't the earliest Christians have thought of that from the beginning? Why didn't they attach the names originally to gain authenticity? Were they so dumb that they never thought impostors could arise later to claim authenticity for their rival Gospels? Why circulate anonymously for a hundred years?

But there's more. If the early Christians wanted to attach the names of disciples of Jesus just to confer legitimacy and trump others, why only attach two names - Matthew and John? For, remember, Mark was really written by John Mark, who was an associate of Peter's, and Luke was written by an associate of Paul's. Why wouldn't the early Christians, if they were forgers, as the well-known liberal atheistic biblical scholar Bart Ehrman charges, not attribute all four Gospels to disciples? Why not then have a Gospel according to Andrew or Phillip or Thomas, the Doubting One? (The later forgers did, in fact, name their Gospels after disciples.)

NO EVIDENCE 

If the earliest Christian communities were into deception, why have companions of Peter and Paul (the latter who was not even one of the Twelve) write the earliest histories of Christianity? The anonymous Gospels thesis is implausible. Plus, if the four Gospels were anonymous and later attributed to authors, why is there no evidence of any early controversy or debate over this? There are books in the Bible over which there has been considerable debate about authorship. A number of books attributed to Paul are hotly contested even today.

And there is one book that even conservative scholars admit we don't know who wrote it - the Book of Hebrews. Many thought it was written by Paul, but others have said that it was written by his companion, Timothy, and still others by Barnabas. Church Father Origen in the Second Century famously said, "Only God knows" who wrote Hebrews. There was no such controversy over the authorship of the four Gospels among church fathers.

The Gospels were well attested by all of them. People like Papias (AD 130), who was a disciple of John; Justin Martyr (AD 140-165); Irenaeus (around AD 180); and Clement (around AD 200) all testified to the authenticity of the four Gospels. What about the Da Vinci Code theory that it was pure politics that determined the Christian canon? In other words, that what we have with the Gospels are simply those books that won out in the political struggle?

Why do we have the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and not The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of Peter, which were another four Gospels in circulation? There is one historical fact that must be noted: These Gospels that did not make it into the Christian canon were later than the four that did. You would sometimes get the impression in the discussion that they were written around the time of the Bible's Four and just didn't make the cut because of politics and expediency. No.

None of them was written in the first century, and the scholarly consensus is that our biblical four were. They were written well within the lifetime of Jesus, the Apostles, and those who followed them. The Gospels were written between, AD 60s and AD 90s, according to most scholars.

University of Notre Dame Professor Brant Pitre, in his brilliantly argued book, The Case for Jesus: Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ (2016) says:

"The destruction of the Temple is never mentioned as a past event in any of the Gospels. If the Gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, then why don't the writers emphasise that Jesus's prophecy had been fulfilled? That would be a natural thing to do."

That is exactly what Luke did, as recorded in Acts 11: 27-28 when he wrote that the prophet Agabus foretold the worldwide famine " ... and this took place in the days of Claudius".

So Pitre asks a logical question: "Isn't it strange that Luke would go out of his way to emphasise that the prophecy of a little-known Christian prophet named Agabus had been fulfilled in the days of the emperor Claudius (the 40s AD) but fail to mention that Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple had been fulfilled in AD 70?"

The indications are that Mark and Matthew were written before AD 70 and the recorded prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem was given as a warning for Christians to flee (See Matthew 24:15, 20).   Jamaica Gleaner

- Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist working with the Jamaica Information Service. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

It's That Time of Year: The Annual COG Pseudo Christmas Celebrations

COG News has this about how UCG, COGWA and LCG have their pretend non-Christmas Celebrations.

2016 will be the 20th year for the Annual Winter Family Weekend, to be held at the Griffin Gate Marriott Resort in Lexington, Kentucky, December 23-26. The event is open to all.

Three Church of God groups in the USA have taken up the tradition of holding a very large social gathering over the Christmas period.

Church of God a Worldwide Association members will be in Louisville, Kentucky, December 23-27, where the Galt House Hotel will be offering a range of seasonal activities for its young guests.

The United Church of God Family Weekend, will be at the Great Wolf Lodge in Mason, Ohio, December 23-27.

The Family Weekend for members of the Living Church of God will take place at the Renaissance Charlotte Suites Hotel, North Carolina, December 22-25.

“Activities will begin on Thursday evening with a casual themed dance at the hotel. Friday morning there will be a number of targeted seminars followed by an afternoon activity. Friday night and Saturday morning there will be special Bible Studies for everyone. We plan to again live-stream the Saturday afternoon Church service over the Internet. Saturday night there will be a formal dinner/dance for all ages. Sunday we will have the increasingly popular Sports Day with basketball and volleyball tournaments, free play, kids’ games and lots of free food! Sunday night we will wrap things up at the hotel with a Games Night. Last year we had over 800 people join us for the events and we hope that this year even more of you will attend. So grab your dance shoes and your tennis shoes and come join us for an exciting weekend of physical and spiritual rejuvenation!”—Jim Meredith

The Streets Cry Out!

Over the decades there have been various crackpots that have come up with all kids of pet theories, wild speculations and outright lies.  It is this same legacy that has allowed Bob Thiel and James Malm to flourish and find a few gullible members to join them.  Liars have always found fertile ground in the Church of God. We have had lying false prophets that knew the exact timeline of prophetic prophecy.

We have had crack pots that claimed the egret found in front of he Auditorium were going to come alive, four of them would pick up the auditorium and the fifth would lead the way as they flew it to Petra. This idiot actually had people who followed him out of the church over this.

One of the crazy things that was swirling around Pasadena when I came to college was the belief by some that God had personally placed his name on the campus.  That belief gained traction because of the street names surrounding the main campus.

Green Street
Orange Grove
Del Mar
St. John

When you take the first letter of each street you come up with this, "GODS," God's campus.  God's church, God's college.  You name it and some idiot claimed God was behind it.

That belief is still in existence today, even though God apparently abandoned the property a couple decades ago.

There is a new crackpot claiming to be God's mouthpiece, just like all the other COG face prophets out there.  This guy is Lee Clark.

The streets cry out!

As long as we're here let's apply the principle of using names to identify who Jesus is talking to in this letter. Notice that in verse 12 the word God is used exactly four times. Now did you know the following interesting bit of trivia? The Worldwide Church of God's Ambassador College campus in Pasadena, California, is bordered by four main streets. On the north is Green Street. On the west is Orange Grove. On the south is Del Mar. And on the east is St. John. These are all names of streets. Streets are places. Now if you take the first letter of each of the streets that border the campus, starting at the north and moving counterclockwise, they spell G-O-D-S. GODS!!! 

Most will say that this is just coincidence. Is it?! I can heap so many coincidences like this on top of each other that after awhile anyone with a converted mind will only be able to conclude that God Himself is so powerful and intelligent and detail-oriented that He planned all these "coincidences" out some time long ago in the eternity that He inhabits and that when Jesus, who had been God in the flesh, dictated these letters to the apostle John, He knew exactly what He would raise up in the future. He knew down to names of the streets that He would have a Worldwide Church of God in Pasadena, California, USA, eighteen-and-a-half centuries down the road. And He named the streets this way to remind us of our destiny!

Living Church of God Says There Is Splattered Blood On Christmas Trees

Requested reposting:

The Living Church of God has another ridiculous article up about Christmas.  This time the personalty cult is claiming that the red on Christmas trees symbolizes splatted blood.  Long red ribbons symbolize the "flowing blood of pagan temple priests who ran around slashing their bodies.

The man-god Attis, after an unsuccessful courtship of the goddess Cybele, mutilated himself, “under a pine-tree, and bled to death on the spot. ... After his death Attis is said to have been changed into a pine-tree … [in worship practices] a pine-tree was cut in the woods and brought into the sanctuary of Cybele, where it was treated as a great divinity … Stirred by the wild barbaric music of clashing cymbals, rumbling drums, droning horns, and screaming flutes, the inferior clergy whirled about in the dance with waggling heads and streaming hair, until, rapt into a frenzy of excitement and insensible to pain, they gashed their bodies with potsherds or slashed them with knives in order to bespatter the altar and the sacred tree with their flowing blood.” (The Golden Bough, Sir James George Frazer, “The Myth and Ritual of Attis” Chapter 34).

Attis’ bloody act under an evergreen tree, along with—as the historical record points out—subsequent duplications by Attis worshippers, has provided paganism with its seasonal red and green motifs.

When Dave Pack Apostatized From The Mother Church He Took All The Thorns and Thistles With Him

Superfantabulous Dave Pack claims that the ministers who leave his cult take all the thorns and thistle members with them, thus leaving Dave with the delightful fruit.  Of the tens of thousands COG members Dave has been a pastor to over the decades he learned to discern who the "prickly" rebellious members were.

One of the interesting things I have learned down through the years…When I watch ministers leave…It could have been Worldwide; sometimes, it was Global, and certainly, in the Restored Church of God. Mr. Armstrong saw hundreds of ministers leave. To some newer brethren it might be surprising if they hear ministers leave. They have been leaving for 2,000 years. Hundreds left while Mr. Armstrong was alive—need we even talk about what they did after he died? It’s a big subject. I have noticed that when ministers leave, invariably, there are a couple of things about them. They never served much. That’s number one—they never served much, and the people who follow them always had, virtually, no fruit. They were thorns and thistles…

In the Church, there are always thorns and thistles. They practically poke you at socials and different activities, at times. Down through the decades, I have seen it. I have pastored thousands and thousands and thousands of people, and there are people who are wonderful—warm, loving, spirit-led people—and other people, who God just reduces and says they are thorns and thistles. They are, literally, prickly in some cases. You don’t want to be known as somebody who is prickly. But ministers who leave, take those kinds of people with them.

Dave then proceeds to tell everyone that he is a false minister, just like James Malm and Bob Thiel.  Look at the people who followed Dave, Bob and James.  They have attracted the bottom of the barrel from the COG.

One of the ways you know a false minister is look at who follows him. Now, Christ’s sheep know His voice, and they don’t follow strangers. What has been exciting to me…I’ve gone back and looked, over the last three-and-a-half years, at the ministers who have left us. Almost all of them—almost all of them—took nobody. We looked back and realized they were terrible ministers. They weren’t serving. They couldn’t take anybody with them. I watched in the earlier years under Mr. Armstrong, sometimes, men would rise up and they would take large numbers. Most of our ministers take no one but their wife and children. A few take a few, and they were always thorns and thistles…problems. Now that might seem strange to you.