Bible Question:
Nolan - Thanks for the response. I'm not sure that this is an answer I'm comfortable with, unfortunately. I understand and accept the inspiration of scripture, but I think what you're proposing is something different - something I've never heard before. The idea that parts of the Gospels are not only inspired, but actually the result of personal revelation in some part is pretty alarming to me. That means, if I understand you correctly, that the authors of the Gospel wrote down as actual events things that they had no direct or indirect knowledge of, on the basis of direct personal revelation. That seems contrary to everything I've ever learned about the Gospels, and even seems contrary to the Gospels themselves - they seem (to me) to be written as "history" - "This is what happened - I was there and saw it or know someone who did". Help me out here - that's way outside my sphere of comfort. |
Bible Answer: Jim Dunne: No criticism of you or your questions/observations is intended here. Welcome to the Forum. You write: "I find it hard to believe Jesus would relate the events Himself, and after His arrest, there simply wasn't time even if He'd wanted to." Why do you find it hard to believe that Jesus would relate the events Himself? Did he not spend the entire 3 1/2 years with the disciples revealing to them things they had no prior knowledge of? As for the second part of your sentence, neither Moses nor any other man was present on the first day of creation. Yet Moses writes of the creation. How would he know of it except by direct revelation? Also, there were many eyewitnesses of the events leading up to the crucifixion and of the crucifixion itself. Do a little research. Hundreds, if not thousands, of books have been written about the gospels. And there is much written about the historical method. Surely Josephus, Luke, or any other historian who ever lived was not an eyewitness to everything of which he wrote, was he? If God by direct revelation can show man things to come (prophecy), is it unthinkable or is it too hard for the Lord to show by direct revelation the things that are past (history)? The idea that God would not impart information to man by direct revelation runs contrary to the whole concept of the inspiration of scripture. Yes, much of the content of the gospels was the record of events of which the writers were eyewitnesses. But, as you so correctly point out, they probably were not eyewitnesses of every last event and word they wrote of. Does this mean that in certain things the gospel record is neither true nor inspired? Please give it some thought. Again, no criticism of you or your questions/observations is intended here. Thank you for your participation in the Forum. |