How useful are the Gospels in regards historical information?

[lukethethird]

The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations but the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist definitely fits well. Intention of a gospel is to present and justify Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus as a baptised follower of JtB is contrary to this purpose. So why would it be included in the story? All authors of gospels had to include it because it actually happened. It was a well known fact at the time. Gospel writers had to put a lot of effort to persuade the readers that Jesus is still greater. For example Mark explained (tried to get away with) the baptism as a heavenly adoption ceremony supported with John's humble forecast.

We have no way of knowing what actually happened, facts here are scarce, particularly regarding this story. What we have is a theology that has gotten a lot of mileage, beyond that is anyone's guess.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The next issue that had to be dealt with in the gospels was origin/descent of Jesus as Messiah. He was expected to be from David's blood line.

"Mark" denied Jesus as "Son of David" because he doesn't have to be (Mark 12:36). This is supported with words by David himself (Psalm 110:1) "The Lord said to my Lord... ". On the other hand "Matthew" and "Luke" tryed to prove Jesus as Son of David (writer of Mt is very fond of this title) with genealogy. To "John" this is not important because Jesus is preexistent Word incarnated.

 

[firedragon]

The important thing is that the record remains as part of God given scripture. Thus I see we can choose to learn from it or not.

To me that is also the choice we are given with the Quran, is it God given to learn from, or is it not?

I see the Bible supports scriptures given in such a way, that the Words are not direct from God but given through a Messenger, they are given via the acceptance of the Messenger (Source of Holy Spirit).

Such as

2 Peter 1:21"For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

I see this is authentic guidance to Hadith as well and as we know any Hadith has to find support from the Mother Book.

Regards Tony

Who wrote second peter?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Who wrote second peter?

Sorry firedragon, I do not see that is relevant to my post, as I do not see the Gospels as a record of historical material events or information.

I see them as a metaphorical record based on historical events, that give a spiritual understanding. Thus I see that passage as a story giving us a vision into how the Word of God permeates the mind of man. I see It teaches us the reality of Christ and the station of some individuals reach when they fully accept and practice what Christ Taught. Personally I see them in a realm far beyond where my mind has traversed. (I aslo see a true believer is as rare as the 'Philosopher's Stone')

I see in this age there is little use of me studying the authenticity of scripture, nor all the arguments that go with that, as that has been done for thousands of years and all that debate did not enable the Christian to accept Muhammad as a Messenger from God, or any Messenger after Muhammad.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Sorry firedragon, I do not see that is relevant to my post, as I do not see the Gospels as a record of historical material events or information.

I see them as a metaphorical record based on historical events, that give a spiritual understanding. Thus I see that passage as a story giving us a vision into how the Word of God permeates the mind of man. I see It teaches us the reality of Christ and the station of some individuals reach when they fully accept and practice what Christ Taught. Personally I see them in a realm far beyond where my mind has traversed. (I aslo see a true believer is as rare as the 'Philosopher's Stone')

I see in this age there is little use of me studying the authenticity of scripture, nor all the arguments that go with that, as that has been done for thousands of years and all that debate did not enable the Christian to accept Muhammad as a Messenger from God, or any Messenger after Muhammad.

Regards Tony

Brother, of course it is relevant. If you are quoting from a book you don't even know who wrote as "scripture" then its invalid. If you are not interested in knowing the authenticity of "scripture", that's blind faith. Its your prerogative to have your faith brother, but when you quote to others they are not of the same faith so it is absolutely relevant to question "who wrote it". In my case, if its not from God or the prophet, its good to read but its not "scripture". Thus its very relevant to me.

Anyway, I wanted to ask you why you eternally keep bringing Hadith into a simple discussion on the Bible or something irrelevant. You don't explain, but just use it fleetingly. May I ask why?

 

[firedragon]

I see this is authentic guidance to Hadith as well and as we know any Hadith has to find support from the Mother Book.

According to who? What methodology says this?