Shane, please give this a listen. I would recommend contacting Dr. Faulk. He makes very solid, logical cases that much of Rohl's work is too speculative and not supported by the evidence. I'm confident you'll want to hear a different perspective to get to the truth. Shalom and thank you for all you do.
Mike, I once met a Muslim pediatrician who told me something similar. In her experience, Muslims were more kind, moral, capable, etc. So, if that turned out to be true, would you convert to Islam? As with your other comment, we probably need to spend time thinking about the definition of words like "morality," and "kindness," for discussions of this kind to be meaningful. As for me, I'm convinced that the OT really did point to a coming messiah (Jews before the time of Jesus spent a LOT of time talking about that sort of thing), and that the NT contains solid reliable eyewitnesses testimony about the arrival of that messiah. Are there Christians who are bad practitioners of their faith? Certainly. But does that undermine the truth of the faith? I'm not sure how it possibly could.
Glad to hear that you would convert to Islam if it's demonstrated to be true. For the record, I would too. I'll follow the truth wherever it leads...even if the only people holding on to it smell funny and aren't terribly friendly. With you, I'm skeptical of many religious and worldview claims, including my own. During the process of my conversion, I talked with Rabbis and read their books, and they did give me things to think about. But in the end I wasn't convinced by their arguments. For example, they argued that Jews believe the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 was just personification of the nation of Israel, rather than a description of a suffering messiah. After thirty years or more of study, it's very clear to me now that this isn't accurate. Many Jews both before and after the time of Jesus believed that Isaiah 52/53 is referring to a Suffering / Dying messiah who would atone for iniquity. There are lines about this in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in Aramaic Targums. I discussed this at length with Daniel Boyarin who is professor of Talmud at the University of Berkeley. He's the author of a really helpful book called The Jewish Gospels (and you can listen to my interview with him about that book here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/whi-radio-members/2019whi1451jan27-extended.mp3 ). BTW, I do argue that the Four Gospels are early first century documents that are rooted in Eyewitness testimony. Why do I believe this? I've been making this case on many recent episodes, so I'd recommend that you listen in. If you'd like a few book recommendations, I'd suggest Cambridge scholar Richard Bauckham's classic text, Jesus & The Eyewitnesses. Also, Lydia McGrew's Testimonies to the Truth, Craig Parton's Religion on Trial, and Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels.
1) Yes I have tried to reconcile the gospel stories on many occasions. I recently gave a lecture on this very topic and I recorded a show about it which you can listen to here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/whi-radio-members/2019whi1491nov03-extended.mp3 2) Yes, the Gospels were written during the crucial eyewitness period.
I do believe that two of the Gospels were written by actual eyewitnesses (Matthew & John), and the two were written by those who summarized the eyewitness reports (Mark and Luke). In terms of offering evidence that all four were written in the eyewitness period, read a text like 1Clement in which the author describes the Temple as still standing, the work of Levitical priests, etc., which indicates that it's pre-70 AD). Then when you read through this epistle, look how many references there are to quotes from the Gospels and Epistles.
Shane, please give this a listen. I would recommend contacting Dr. Faulk. He makes very solid, logical cases that much of Rohl's work is too speculative and not supported by the evidence. I'm confident you'll want to hear a different perspective to get to the truth. Shalom and thank you for all you do.
https://youtu.be/c-GwRCAaf1Y
Mike, I once met a Muslim pediatrician who told me something similar. In her experience, Muslims were more kind, moral, capable, etc. So, if that turned out to be true, would you convert to Islam? As with your other comment, we probably need to spend time thinking about the definition of words like "morality," and "kindness," for discussions of this kind to be meaningful. As for me, I'm convinced that the OT really did point to a coming messiah (Jews before the time of Jesus spent a LOT of time talking about that sort of thing), and that the NT contains solid reliable eyewitnesses testimony about the arrival of that messiah. Are there Christians who are bad practitioners of their faith? Certainly. But does that undermine the truth of the faith? I'm not sure how it possibly could.
Glad to hear that you would convert to Islam if it's demonstrated to be true. For the record, I would too. I'll follow the truth wherever it leads...even if the only people holding on to it smell funny and aren't terribly friendly. With you, I'm skeptical of many religious and worldview claims, including my own. During the process of my conversion, I talked with Rabbis and read their books, and they did give me things to think about. But in the end I wasn't convinced by their arguments. For example, they argued that Jews believe the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 was just personification of the nation of Israel, rather than a description of a suffering messiah. After thirty years or more of study, it's very clear to me now that this isn't accurate. Many Jews both before and after the time of Jesus believed that Isaiah 52/53 is referring to a Suffering / Dying messiah who would atone for iniquity. There are lines about this in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in Aramaic Targums. I discussed this at length with Daniel Boyarin who is professor of Talmud at the University of Berkeley. He's the author of a really helpful book called The Jewish Gospels (and you can listen to my interview with him about that book here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/whi-radio-members/2019whi1451jan27-extended.mp3 ). BTW, I do argue that the Four Gospels are early first century documents that are rooted in Eyewitness testimony. Why do I believe this? I've been making this case on many recent episodes, so I'd recommend that you listen in. If you'd like a few book recommendations, I'd suggest Cambridge scholar Richard Bauckham's classic text, Jesus & The Eyewitnesses. Also, Lydia McGrew's Testimonies to the Truth, Craig Parton's Religion on Trial, and Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels.
1) Yes I have tried to reconcile the gospel stories on many occasions. I recently gave a lecture on this very topic and I recorded a show about it which you can listen to here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/whi-radio-members/2019whi1491nov03-extended.mp3 2) Yes, the Gospels were written during the crucial eyewitness period.
I do believe that two of the Gospels were written by actual eyewitnesses (Matthew & John), and the two were written by those who summarized the eyewitness reports (Mark and Luke). In terms of offering evidence that all four were written in the eyewitness period, read a text like 1Clement in which the author describes the Temple as still standing, the work of Levitical priests, etc., which indicates that it's pre-70 AD). Then when you read through this epistle, look how many references there are to quotes from the Gospels and Epistles.