characters The Case for Jesus The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ 107

review ☆ eBook, PDF or Kindle ePUB Ï Brant Pitre

The Case for Jesus The Biblical and Historical Evidence for ChristNcluding If we don't know who wrote the Gospels how can we trust them How are the four Gospels different from other gospels such as the lost gospel of and Case for Jesus eBook #10003 the Gospel of Thomas How can the four Gospels be historically true when there are differences between them How much faith should be put into these writings As The Case f. Briant Pitre begins “A Case for Jesus” by getting right to the point “This book is about one big uestion Did Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God” He then expressed his shock when in college he learned that that the gospels were written anonymously the actual authors are unknown Apparently he continued through his seminary and graduate education pursuing this concernPitre assumes that being divine is the same as being God Actually the synoptic gospels do not claim that Jesus called himself God He called Himself the Son of Man and the apostle Peter says that he was the Son of the Living God Only in the Johannine gospel did Jesus call himself God In the synoptic gospels Jesus is presented as the Son of God; He was divine but he never called himself God Pitre appears to be missing this point It is commonly known among scholars that in the Synoptic gospels Mark Matthew Luke Jesus never referred to himself as God Pitri’s argues that the Lord’s stilling the storm in Psalms 107 is an activity reserved for God alone and therefore Jesus’ stilling the storm in Mark 4 Matthew 8 Luke 8 is evidence that Jesus considered himself to be God This is a rather weak challenge to established scholarship He makes a number of other arguments that Jesus performed miracles that the Hebrew scriptures had reserved for God alone However Jesus is the divine son of God the second member of the Godhead Such miracles are not evidence that Jesus called Himself God – He was the divine son of GodPitre makes much of the early Christian fathers’ belief that the gospels were written by the biblical figures Matthew Levi the tax collector John Mark the scribe Luke the physician and John son of Zebedee while the same early Christian fathers rejected the attributed authorship of the apocryphal gospels ie Thomas Judas Peter Although certain of the early Christian fathers personally knew some of the apostles and others were only a generation away it must be considered that they did not have the research tools of today’s progressive Christians In the Galilee where only 1 in a 1000 could write it is doubtful that an uneducated fisherman John Son of Zebedee could have written the Johannine gospel However Matthew the tax collector John Mark the scribe and Luke the physician probably would have been able to write However is there any evidence that Matthew the tax collector John Mark the scribe and Luke the physician are the Matthew Mark and Luke of the synoptic gospels Here again Pitre’s arguments are weak He presents no direct internal evidence of authorship of the apocryphal gospels Each time Pitre states evidence the reader can tell that he is reaching for supportA number of current scholars claim that the titles of the four gospels were added late in the second century Pitre makes a good point that no early manuscripts without titles have been discovered I noticed that myself in reviewing the early manuscriptsI will leave it to the reader to judge Pitre’s reasons why each gospel was written but he totally misses the entire point that 1 Matthew was written by a Jewish Christian who demonstrated a determination to establish that Jesus was the Jewish messiah by continuously referring to prophesy from the Hebrew scriptures with mistakes in some references; 2 Mark and Matthew present a somewhat down and depressed Jesus My God My God why have you forsaken Me; and 3 Luke presents a upbeat Jesus Father into your hands I commit my spirit Moreover Pitre’s argument that Jesus’ saying “My God My God why have you forsaken Me” is a fulfilment of scripture Psalms 22 is uite a reachPitre argues that while each gospel uses different words and phrases they all say essentially the same thing Again he is reaching He misses points such as 1 the two Christmas stories Matthew and Luke totally contradict each other 2 each gospel has a different group of people at the cross during the crucifixion; 3 the synoptic gospels have Jesus being crucified on the Day of Passover while John has the crucifixion on the day before Passover; and 4 other errors and contradictionsHe makes a reasonable argument that the gospels “could have been” written prior to the late 1st century period that is claimed by most scholars eg If Acts had been written late 1st or early 2nd century why is there no mention of Paul’s death 64 CE Accordingly Acts must have been written before the death of Paul I would like to see a debate between Pitre and one of the current progressive Christian scholarsPitre says we have the testimony of both Eusebius of Caesarea 325 CE and Cyril bishop of the Church in Jerusalem around 350 CE who agreed that there are writings by heretics under the name of the apostles Peter and Thomas He forgets that following the Council of Nicaea 325 CE Eusebius of Caesarea himself was declared a hereticI suppose it is but a minor point but in reference to the destruction of the Temple 70 CE Pitre refers to Emperor Titus Although Titus led the army that destroyed the Temple his reign as emperor was much later r 79 81 CEOverall “A Case for Jesus” was an enjoyable read but I must uestion some of Pitre’s arguments A scholar permits the evidence to lead to a conclusion Unfortunately Pitre gives the impression that he stated his conclusion up front and continuously reached for supporting evidence Still there is much to learn from the specific historical material he presents

Brant Pitre Ï 7 Free read

Over the past hundred years scholars for Jesus Kindle #207 have attacked the historical truth of the Gospels and argued that they were originally anonymous and filled with contradictions In The Case for Jesus Brant Pitre taps into the wells of Christian scripture history The Case PDFEPUBand tradition to ask and answer a number of different uestions i. About ten years ago while waiting at the Pittsburgh Airport I met a young biblical scholar named Dr Brant Pitre We were both heading to the same biblical conference so we rode together and in the car we had a lively discussion about biblical interpretation especially the reliability of the GospelsDr Pitre shared how annoyed he was by the oft used comparison between the transmission of the story of Jesus and the “Telephone game” where little children whisper a story to one another around a group until the end result is completely garbled and nothing like the original storyI turned around to Dr Pitre I was in the front seat and he in the back and said “Yes Someone needs to write a book dedicated to refuting that stupid comparison” Bishop Robert Barron

characters The Case for Jesus The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ

characters The Case for Jesus The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ 107 · ➼ The Case for Jesus The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ Free ➲ Author Brant Pitre – Over the past hundred years scholars have attacked the historical truth of the Gospels aOr Jesus will show recent discoveries in New Testament scholarship as Case for Jesus The Biblical PDFEPUB or well as neglected evidence from ancient manuscripts and the early church fathers together have the potential to pull the rug out from under a century of skepticism toward the apostolic authorship and historical truth of the traditional Gospels. As someone who is no stranger to reading apologetic works like this one 1 I found this book interesting and worthwhile for several reasons although I must admit I am not as enthusiastic about some of his other books where his Catholic perspective is a bit stronger like his book on the whore of Babylon for example  Even so this was a book that hit a certain sweet spot that makes a book enjoyable to read and that is a work that presents a thoughtful case for Christ based on the evidence that also takes seriously the Hebrew thought of the early Church of God  Even if this author does not share that perspective it is worthwhile at least to note that he celebrates and presents that understanding in a way that is appealing to read and which is uite excellent to contrast with the approaches taken by other contemporary Christian apologists few of whom have a great interest in the perspective of the Hebrew scriptures on such matters as the Messiah and why it was that Jesus Christ was considered guilty of blasphemyThis book totals about 200 pages a pretty standard length for an easy to read volume of this type and contains a baker's dozen of chapters that deal with various matters about the historical and biblical case for Jesus Christ  The author begins with a discussion of the uest for the historical Jesus and for the author's own personal uest for belief through the course of his education  After that the author asks the uestion of whether the Gospels were anonymous finding no anonymous copies of the Gospels whatsoever but rather finding that the four Gospels of our scripture are uniformly given the titles that we have them or abbreviations thereof  The author then turns his attention to the writings of various ante Nicene church fathers showing his Catholic perspective in an appealing form here while looking critically at the so called Lost Gospels  The author then looks at the genre of the Gospels as biographies and discusses the dating of the Gospels as being before the destruction of the Temple  It is at this point that the author shows his most interesting line of evidence by looking at Jesus' messianic claims and their Hebrew context which can be found in all of the Gospels and not only John  After this the author looks at the crucifixion resurrection and transfiguration presenting a solid book that is immensely enjoyable for a believer to readWhere this book excels the most is in exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of so much of the critical impulse of self professed scholars when it comes to examining the biblical record  By looking at what the self professed Christian writers of the early centuries of Christianity said about texts which we can read for ourselves in translation today we can see that there was no widespread conspiracy against valid forms of Christianity but rather a strong Christian hostility to pseudonymous works and a high degree of concern for eyewitness testimony as well as high standards of historicity which one finds in the Gospels as a whole  The author shows himself to be knowledgeable in matters of textual criticism to a high degree and it is inspirational that he managed to survive as a faithful person in the sort of environment that tends to cause so many others to lose their faith because of corrupt instruction by those who should know better but do not when it comes to God's word and its reliability  For those who are at least somewhat sympathetic to an understanding of the Hebrew scriptures and their viewpoint as well as to a historical look at the church fathers of late antiuity this book is definitely a worthwhile and enjoyable read1 See for example