I don't believe there is a God and therefore I do not
accept the Gospel accounts as factual.
Not exact matches
Here's one very basic fact you need to keep in mind: If you
accept the Synoptic
gospels» assertion that this all happened at Passover, then you MUST immediately know that the entire
account is fiction.
Many Christians continue to
accept the historical accuracy of the
gospel accounts, which have formed the basis for dramatic re-enactment of Jesus» passion over the centuries.
Using his experience as a detective, Wallace showed the «Chain of Custody» of the evidence which was recorded in the New Testament Gospels and how they went from the actual life of Jesus to the «courtroom» or the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD where the four
Gospel accounts were officially
accepted into the New Testament canon.
The discourses of Jesus, for example, upon Baptism (3) and upon the Eucharist (6) reflect the same fundamental conception of the significance and necessity of these two rites; that this conception was that of the evangelist is plain, e.g. from 3:16 - 21, where Jesus» words have passed insensibly into the evangelist's reflection upon them; if the evangelist was the son of Zebedee, it would be natural to
accept his
accounts as substantially correct records of incidents and discourses from Jesus» ministry, but, if he was not, a comparison with the synoptic
gospels and with the teaching of Paul and others on the sacraments would suggest doubts as to the historical value of both discourses.
Although he
accepted the synoptic
account of Jesus» teaching as largely authentic, he made no attempt to construct a picture of Jesus from that teaching, and, although he quite properly criticized the element of myth in the
gospels, he then went on to replace that dogmatic mythology of the Church with a conceptual mythology of his own.