Testing the Bible's Four Gospels

Independent multiple attestation shifts the burden of the proof onto somebody whose says the four Gospels are just made up.

The criterion of coherence fits the culture of Palestine in the 20s and 30s through archaeological finds.

The dating issue is met in which the Synoptics are written within a generation of Jesus' ministry. There are no counter-gospels written during this time. Julius Caesar died in 44 BC, and the historian Suetonius is talking about him in 110-120 AD. That's 155 to 165 years removed. Tacitus also. The Gospels are much better than that.

We have community of believers. There's proximity. Inner logic. Original people. People met frequently, reviewing Jesus' teachings, making it normative for the way they lived. The teaching was called to mind and talked about all the time. These being faith based documents poses no conflict.

What about miracles? Jesus could do things far better, far more effectively, far more astoundingly than the scribes could in dealing with healings and exorcisms. We ought not come along with high-handed arrogance by saying unless we can explain it scientifically, metaphysically or philosophically then we should reject it. These documents tells us how Jesus was perceived by his contemporaries. In their mind, there was only one way to explain it--it's a miracle.

Competing gospels burned? Christians would have had no control over the city. They couldn't command or coerce anyone to burn anything in the first century. Constantine in 325 doesn't have control over what Christians believed either. 25 of the 27 NT books were quoted by the 2nd century from the church fathers, so we still have the same original documents.

Who did Jesus think He was? He clearly believed he was the Son of Man prophesied to come in Daniel's chapter 7 to proclaim the Good News--the rule of God. He believed he had this prophetic authority to stand before God on his throne and received power and authority to proclaim it. He was convinced He was Israel's Messiah as none others did, not to take down Rome, but to extend the messianic blessings to the Gentiles. He believed is God's divine essence--God's Son. Not just an anointed one.

The high priest Caiaphas asked Jesus under oath: "Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?" Jesus said, "Yes, I am. You will see the Son of Man"--Daniel 7--"sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One"--Psalm 110--"and coming on the clouds of heaven"--back to Daniel 7. Caiaphas understood what he meant. He was outraged! 'You're going to sit next to God on his chariot throne? Blasphemy," he said. 'We have no need of further witness. You've heard it yourselves. What do you say? He's worthy of death." Jesus was not claiming to be anointed by God as some messenger of some sort. The call to execution had to do with him claiming to be God's Son. It was blasphemous to say, "I will sit on God's throne."

Easter doesn't come about by saying, "Jesus was prophet. No, actually he was a Rabbi." They believed Jesus was the Son of God before Easter. If Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah or God's Son and the disciples didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God before Easter, His postmortem appearances wouldn't have led them to think that. It's because the ground work was set in His ministry for 3 years making the case who He was.