Turn the other cheek

[Meshuga]

We argue about the existence of an historical Jesus. A real person or not, the tales about his life are told by others who never knew him. Is that why his words and actions contradict so much with each other?

For example, Jesus preached turning the other cheek, loving one's neighbor and praying for them, and forgiving those who wronged others. When did Jesus manifest such behavior in his personal relationships, during his lifetime, for others to emulate? Do we have any examples?

How about these "facts" from the NT:

- Instead of forgiving Judas for betraying him he said: "But woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born" (Matthew 26:24).
- his cursing of the Pharisees (Matthew 23)
- his threat of violent retribution on cities that rejected his message (Matthew 11:20-24, Luke 10:13- 15)
- his condemnation to death of Jews who would not accept him (Luke 19:27)

The fact of the matter is that Jesus himself never turned the other cheek. At least according to the people who wrote about him. Or these authors do Jesus no justice?

Jesus never forgave anyone who rejected his claims. He responded to his opponents, not with passive resistance, but by answering criticism with criticism, reviling and threatening his adversaries (for example, Matthew 23).

At best, the accounts of Jesus only show him forgiving those who wronged others.

I might be totally wrong about this, or not, but the topic is open for discussion...

[beam me up scottie]

1. oh boy...

:popcorn:

[pocoloco]

2. Your "facts"? "facts"??

[sam sarrha]

3. i don't really think there are any facts about jesus.. i have never heard of his name mentioned in

history, real history.... i think people just made up stuff, sitting around a roaring campfire of dried goat turds... to prove their god was better over the centuries..

[zeemike]

15. Just curious

Would you consider manuscripts in a Tibetan monastery real history?
Or does real history only come from the secular non believer.of any kind of spiritualism.

[Zhade]

28. Your query is too open-ended.

Real manuscripts, or reputed-but-never-seen?

What do they say? Is it backed up by independent corroborating sources?

What is the chain of custody for them, and what evidence do we have to support that chain?

See, lots of questions have to be answered before we can say they are "real history".

[zeemike]

31. Here is the story decide for yourself

http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

The Lost Years of Jesus:
The Life of Saint Issa
Translation by Notovitch

The Best of the Sons of Men
Ancient scrolls reveal that Jesus spent seventeen years in India and Tibet
From age thirteen to age twenty-nine, he was both a student and teacher of Buddhist and Hindu holy men
The story of his journey from Jerusalem to Benares was recorded by Brahman historians
Today they still know him and love him as St. Issa. Their 'buddha'
In 1894 Nicolas Notovitch published a book called The Unknown Life of Christ. He was a Russian doctor who journeyed extensively throughout Afghanistan, India, and Tibet. Notovitch journeyed through the lovely passes of Bolan, over the Punjab, down into the arid rocky land of Ladak, and into the majestic Vale of Kashmir of the Himalayas. During one of his jouneys he was visiting Leh, the capital of Ladak, near where the buddhist convent Himis is. He had an accident that resulted in his leg being broken. This gave him the unscheduled opportunity to stay awhile at the Himis convent.

Notovitch learned, while he was there, that there existed ancient records of the life of Jesus Christ. In the course of his visit at the great convent, he located a Tibetan translation of the legend and carefully noted in his carnet de voyage over two hundred verses from the curious document known as "The Life of St. Issa."

He was shown two large yellowed volumes containing the biography of St. Issa. Notovitch enlisted a member of his party to translate the Tibetan volumes while he carefully noted each verse in the back pages of his journal.

When he returned to the western world there was much controversy as to the authenticity of the document. He was accused of creating a hoax and was ridiculed as an imposter. In his defense he encouraged a scientific expedition to prove the original tibetan documents existed.

One of his skeptics was Swami Abhedananda. Abhedananda journeyed into the arctic region of the Himalayas, determined to find a copy of the Himis manuscript or to expose the fraud. His book of travels, entitled Kashmir O Tibetti, tells of a visit to the Himis gonpa and includes a Bengali translation of two hundred twenty-four verses essentially the same as the Notovitch text. Abhedananda was thereby convinced of the authenticity of the Issa legend.

[MasonJar]

4. i am no expert on the New Testament, but I am fairly sure that

Jesus disliked the people who used religion as a power tool or a tool to aggrandize themselves. He did not countenance the moneychangers in the temple, it is true, because he saw the threat of such hypocrites to the average citizen. But he loved the universally despised because he wanted to show the worth of all men. The lepers, the prostitutes, the tax collectors, the everyday Joe and Jill were the people that he wanted to reach. As for Judas, Jesus forgave all mankind as he was tortured to death on the cross; he knew that Judas betrayal was predestined. Jesus was a great teacher, philosopher, humanitarian and sent his disciples to continue to teach his views of love and charity and humility. It is man who failed to accept the beautiful messages found in the Beatitudes and the New Testament.

[Az]

5. God hates figs

http://www.godhatesfigs.com/

Just a sample of God's wrath against figs.

Jeremiah 29:17 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will send upon them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like vile figs, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil.

[Igel]

6. Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

Does that count?

How about "And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?"

It's a rebuke, the severity of which depends on the speaker's intonation. It's hardly condemnation; the stronger condemnations are for much less injury.

Matt 26:24 is taken as prophetic; Jesus didn't punish Judas.

And Luke 19:11-27 is a parable, an invented tale that should have some verisimilitude, but isn't an account of actual events. That is, Jesus wasn't handing out lumps of silver and ordering people executed. This one gets tossed from your list as irrelevant.

However, the point is well taken, and, in fact, is precisely the basis for much "fundie" thought: Jesus came as Isaiah's suffering servant to live and show that love serves as a sufficient basis for complete obedience to God, and to die so that one's faults can be overlooked and the price required paid. Along the way he made predictions, but carried out no penalties. He stood up for his teaching, and much less for himself. At least this is close to the usual account. Note that it's impossible in many ways to rule and be a Xian: A ruler could not defend himself if attacked for his faith, and could not sentence anybody for a crime--a perfectly merciful ruler would be overthrown by his imperfect subjects. If the adulteress' story is authentic, there's little difference between that and incest or murder: Jesus put aside even the severest punishment in the Law. What you get from the New Testament is not compatible with having anything more than a trivial amount of political or legal power. He rendered to Caesar the things that were Caesar's, simply because that wasn't his kingdom.

Part III of the drama, however, is the 'day of judgment' and its sequelae. Jesus returns as King of kings and as Judge: his kingdom isn't of this age ... with a possible implication that it *is* of another age; Caesar's rule is over, now it's his turn and he won't submit to Caesar's authority. He will execute his prophecies. In this account, the judgment that Jesus is widely considered to have annulled isn't annulled at all, or at least parts of it aren't annulled ... they're merely suspended to allow repentance.

Some people want to make Jesus a simplified version of a human being, a cardboard cutout.

[peanutbrittle]

7. IMO...Jesus's mission on earth was so important and serious

to the well being and furtherment of civilization through his teachings, such as the Beatitudes, that comments such as these represent just how serious his mission and the act of the betrayal were.

His shortened life restricted the uplifting of the teachings to mankind.

The Beatitudes still stand

[TRYPHO]

8. Who shortened his life? His Dad didn't help him out then?

If he'd had more to say surely he would have lived long enough to have said it, since he was God.
The Beatitudes are Jewish in origin, find your own statements.

And please add up the total benefit Christianity has added to the world and minus the harm it has caused and tell me whether you feel the result was better then neutral.

If every human being in the western world who isn't Christian has been negativiely affected by Chrisianity (Buddha isn't so) and every life lost to an inquisition, crusade, war or lack of healing for idiotic pseudo-religious reasons, and the list can go on and on and on....

So please, tell me in all honesty, has Jesus SAVED, or has Jesus HURT the world?

TRYPHO

[peanutbrittle]

9. If he would have lived longer he could have done more

to uplift and unify the teachings of the brotherhood of man, etc. which was part of his mission. His incarnation on earth in human form and living as man meant he, by the Fathers will was to live by the laws of man as well. Arrested by the narrow minded Sanhedrin and the Romans he was put to death for blasphemy in claiming to be the Son of God.

IMO the adulterated and abusive version of Christianity which we see today and that has been evolving since the time of Jesus is what has caused the problems. I don't think it's what Jesus had in mind as do many others.

Some serious changes in religion are due.....


Religion in mans evolution goes back to the beginning of the human race. Primitive man most likely worshiped nature itself. Through the ages of time man has worshiped earth, air, water & fire. Then came the worship of the spirits of nature most likely caused by the fear of the elements. Then it evolved to the worship of the sun, the moon, the stars and the universe. Having worshiped everything else he even has worshiped himself and the religion of natural origin. The ghost cults, fetishes, charms, and magic, sacrifice and atonement all made their appearance. Eventually, based in the interest of civilization survival, setting social standards for all to live in harmony and possibly through divine guidance and illuminatory revelation, man evolved to the point of inserting moral & ethical standards into his worship.

If you are a believer, apparently the evolvement of worship was uplifted greatly from some confusion upon the arrival of the life and teachings of Jesus. I don't think there would be many here who would say that the teachings of, who we call Jesus (whether or not you believe he existed or not) did not add something the the moral and ethical standards of our social structure.

So, based upon this historical perspective, I am of the opinion that religion contributed greatly to the survival of our civilization even through the strife and divisions.

Currently, though, I think most would agree there are some serious problems with religion in our world today. The institutionalizing of religion, the formalization of religion, the "chosen people" attitude and fanaticism stifles the power of religions positive impact upon the human race in fomenting universal knowledge, beauty and goodness in the brotherhood of man.

[TRYPHO]

10. Romans used to kill their new borns regularly, and women were very lowly

When Christianity started, the women were equals, and they no longer gave the fathers the right to choose whether a new born child was to live or die. This alone made Christianity very appealing. In addition the calling of each other "brother" and "sister" was attractive; as was the fact that to be a good Christian didnt require one to make a donation to their God (ie it was cheap!). Finally, those who became Baptised (once or twice, depending on your sect), gave up their posessions and really did live in suffering, to the detriment of their families usually - but to outsiders this was another appealing trait of the early converts. And enticed many to follow even though there were genuine risks to themselves in doing so.

These are the reasons why Christianity took off in Roman times. That and the word of The Son of Man within the synagogue was and an enticement away from the strict adherence of the more Rabbinical Judaism as being promulgated by the Yavneh college. This new funky faith seemed quite relaxed and more assimilatory than the stricter version, so many Jews participated in it - not as Christians but as Jews. Non Jews were not really welcome for quite a while.

Once the Roman Emperor converted everything went political and immediately caused hardship and suffering and death to all who werent of the Faith.

So, I'd say Christianity had about 300 years of suffering TO CHRISTIANS, and then 1706 years of suffering to NON CHRISTIANS.

Overall, I'd say Christianity is in deficit to about 300,000,000 - 400,000,000 souls.

Devilishly good faith.

TRYPHO
Damned spelling errors - should be my signature

[jgraz]

11. To borrow and old saw: Jesus' teachings are both good and original

the original parts aren't good and the good parts aren't original. The idea that the world "needed" the new testament is simply crap, as most of the people in the world never got it and they seem to have done all right (until the Christians showed up, that is).

[TRYPHO]

12. The really clever part was

Not only did they manage to blame the Jews for Jesus' death (and therein lies 2000 years of Anti-semitism) but they also managed to add that the Old Testament was but the forerunner and that those that still followed the OT hadn't received the "New Word" and unless they "Found Jesus" now not only wouldn't find God but were destined for hell.

That Irenaeus (and his cronies) were SO devious in their manufacturing of a relgion that denied all others and guaranteed their promotion by semi-logical means.

Anyway, I mustn't moan - its given me years of good study.

TRYPHO

[Meshuga]

13. Jesus followers

at the time could not speak negatively about the Romans since they lived under Roman rule so the Jews were a great target to receive the title of "Christ killers" even though Jews had no authority to execute anyone. The Christian scripture is way biased against the Jews and makes a ruthless figure like Pontius Pilatus have reservations about killing Jesus. Like Pontius Pilatus would care for what Jews had to say.

If Jesus really existed and there were rumors that he was a Jewish messiah he would be considered a dangerous figure by Roman's standards and his ass would become fried chicken regardless of what Jews had to say.

(Edited for spelling)

[zeemike]

16. Completely wrong

I refer you to Mathew 19-16

16. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19. Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21. Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

So there it is, something that can be done by atheist as well as any other religion.

[jgraz]

25. You're forgetting a few requirements

Luke 18:18-22 "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then, come follow me."

Luke 14:26-27 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple."

Matthew 5:20 "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

John 6:53-54 "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

So -- sell all your stuff, hate your mother and father, follow every part of the old testament and take up cannibalism. Lovely.

[zeemike]

30. No it is you that has left out some key words

Mathew 19
20. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21. Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

"If thou will be perfect" is what you ignore. He told the man all he needed was to follow the commandments BUT IF HE WOULD BE PERFECT and follow Him he would lay up treasures in heaven.

Luke 14:26-27
Here the ignored phrase is "he cannot be my disciple" He was talking to his disciples not to the average person. He did require that his disciples rid themselves of all possessions and they continued this even after the Death of Jesus. IN fact it is where the word Communism comes from; Holding all things in common"

Mathew 5-20
Well dua...The Pharisees and Sadducee's were constantly after Jesus trying to trip him up and have him put to death..any common man that obeyed the commandments would exceed the riotousness of the Pharisees.

John 6 53
So you don't understand a metaphor? well you are not the only one. if you read on you see this:
60. Many therefore of his disciples, when the heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?
61. But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? ...
63. It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life.
64. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him.
65. And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
66. Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

[Meshuga]

19. Pretty much!

the original parts aren't good and the good parts aren't original. The idea that the world "needed" the new testament is simply crap, as most of the people in the world never got it and they seem to have done all right (until the Christians showed up, that is).

Pretty much! There is no furtherment of civilization through his teachings. The nice stuff already existed and the stuff that was introduced would damn to eternity the people who would not accept him as a savior.

The earlier prophets already fought for social justice and some of them went a step further. Some of them claimed religious rituals to be bullshit when people could not treat their fellow human beings with dignity.

The Prophets never tired of calling on people to loose the bonds of the oppressed, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. They cried out against those who "crushed the poor into the dust", they urged justice and compassion for widows and orphans, for foreigners and the impoverished. Their vision was that of the just and humane society intended by God as an ultimate goal. Jesus did not introduce that and the idea existed at least 600 years before his era.

[zeemike]

14. Boy do I hate threads like this

Not because they are posted but because the OP contains so many errors and mistakes in understanding that it is difficult for a non professional writer to answer them all
But right from the start you say:
"the tales about his life are told by others who never knew him."

A very common assumption based solely on the absents of evidence that John actually aether dictated his story to a scribe, ( common in that day where writing was a trade) or actually wrote himself. And sense the evidence of this original writing would have been disintegrated by now and had to be copied many times over the ages the assumption is that it was not only written by people that never knew Jesus but that they made it up.
And yet the same people will read the inscriptions on a kings tomb and never question whether it is true or not and in there mind it becomes fact, but only if it confirms there previous conclusions.

Now you see the problem i have? I have not gotten past the first paragraph and have had to write so much to explain a single mistaken assumption.
Fortunately there are others here that answered the rest of it ( and very well done I might add)or I would be here all morning trying to answer the many misconceptions in this thread.

[Meshuga]

17. Actually

igil had a pretty good response to the thread and didn't have to write a book about it. He (she?) handled the questioning pretty well, I thought.

I am bringing up questioning and I see you are unconfortable with it and try to dismiss what is written since questioning may bring your world apart.

The tales of his life are told by people who never knew him. Sure, that's an assumption but assuming these people knew him is also an assumption. Saying he even existed is an assumption like saying he did not exist is also an assumption.

[zeemike]

18. I would agree with that, but igil obviously has more skill than I do

I am not uncomfortable with the questions at all. And that is because I am well read on the subject and actually understand the NT.
What is uncomfortable for me is lacking the skills at writing to answer the questions in a concise manner without having to go on and on. (and in the process sounding like a preacher trying to convert)

But in Mathew Mark Luke and John they are called the witnesses for a reason. That is because in the Jewish law two or more that give witness to an event it is considered to be true unless the two give an exact same account and then it can be considered contrived.
The disciples knew how important it was to give there witness to the life of Jesus and my guess is that all of them dictated there own story to a scribe at some point. And the fact that only 4 survived doesn't surprise me because documents are fragile things
What percent of the documents do you suppose survived from the Roman Empire? Way less than 1 percent I am sure.

[Meshuga]

20. Good

I'm glad you are not uncomfortable with the questions or with questioning.

But where in halacha (Jewish law) does it say that two or more that give witness to an event it is to be considered to be true? This is a big spin!

You need 3 witnesses knowledgeable in halacha (Jewish law) who follows halacha in order for that to work and that is in a JEWISH COURT! Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are "witnesses" according to Christianity and not according to halacha.

Where in Jewish texts do we have the decision that Jesus actually existed based on what you are saying?

[zeemike]

21. I was going by this

Circumstantial evidence is inadmissible; to convict the defendant two qualified witnesses who have no material interest in the case are required. Prosecution witnesses are disqualified if they are motivated by a desire to testify in order to escape punishment. The witnesses must be warned about the graveness of perjury in general and in connection with capital punishment in particular.

I can't imagine why the witnesses would have to be knowledgeable in jewish law...that would eliminate most of the populous and so only a few could be witness to anything...but I await your source for this.

But MML&J were jews and so was Jesus and most of his followers so what is the problem with them giving testimony to the life of Jesus? And I point out that Jesus held the religious leadership to blame for the problems they caused, and was a thorn in the side of the leadership so just why would they make any record of his life? There interest was to erase his life from history...And they employed people like Paul to search out the followers of Jesus and put them to death long after the death of Jesus.

[Meshuga]

22. My source?

My source? the Talmud. The law might disqualify most of the population for ignorance of halacha HOWEVER as it is stated in the Mishnah, "If the witness was unknown another was sent with him to testify to his character." If you make the law as simple as you state than we can always find enough witnesses to prove the existence of sasquatches and to prove Elvis is not dead.

By the way, the law you are referring to with the two witnesses is in regards to shabbat where two halachic witnesses were required in order to convict a person for desecrating the shabbat. The law in question is discussed in the Mishnah and in the Gemara. And missionaries use that specific law in the context you are using in their technique of converting Jews to Christianity.

Jews would have no need to rid of Jesus from history. There are many would be Jewish messiahs like Jesus with more contemporaneous historical references than Jesus and they were not erased from memory. You have to remember that the word messiah to a Jew has a different meaning to a Christian and vice-versa. The context was changed from its original hebrew when Christians needed to create the figure from the NT. Read the hebrew bible in its original hebrew and you will see there is no need for a Jew to go after the historical Jesus to catch the BS.

[zeemike]

24. My search was unable to confirm what you say

From;
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=530&letter=E&search=Witness


EVIDENCE: (print this article)


By : Solomon Schechter Lewis N. Dembitz

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
I. Witnesses:
Number and Qualifications.
Moral Qualifications.
II. Mode of Examination:
In Presence of the Litigant.
III. Documentary Proof:
Establishing a Deed.
IV. Effect of Evidence:
Circumstantial Evidence.



Whenever in proceedings at law an issue arises—that is, in civil cases when a fact is asserted on one side and denied on the other—the issue is generally determined by evidence, which the party having the burden of proof must proffer; and evidence to the contrary may be brought forward by the other party. The evidence may consist either of the testimony of witnesses or of documentary writings. What here follows applies in the main to civil cases.

I. Witnesses:


In order to prove a disputed fact, witnesses must fulfil the following requirements:

Number and Qualifications.

1.

Two must testify to the same fact. This rule is laid down in Deut. xxv. 15 and in other passages apparently for criminal cases only, but it has been extended to civil cases as well. In civil cases, however, it is not necessary that the two witnesses should agree very closely as to time and place.

The witness must be an Israelite. The Talmud seems to take this for granted; though it allows some facts to stand proved upon a statement "made innocently" by a Gentile; that is, not as a witness in court. In damage cases the Mishnah (B. Ḳ. i. 3) says expressly that the witnesses must be freemen and sons of the Covenant.

The witness must be a man, not a woman (R. H. i. 8); of full age, that is, more than thirteen years old; not a deaf-mute or a lunatic, and, according to the better opinion, not a blind man, and not either deaf or dumb.

Perhaps you can give me a link to where you find that.

But to state that the Jews did not have any reason to be rid of Jesus and his followers can't be right if they pursued them for so many years after the fact.

[Meshuga]

26. I am confused

I am confused to what you are trying to achieve by providing the use of witnesses in court cases regarding Jewish law. You know, just because Shlomo and Moshe each had different sightings of a sasquatch it still doesn't mean that sasquatches exist. The Beit Din (Jewish court) might even believe them but it doesn't make it a fact.

Same goes with MML&J who told us about the life of Jesus (some who probably never met Jesus) and the first of these accounts was first mentioned historically by someone around 160 CE (way after "death"). Jewish law does not prove anything here. Come on Mike, this is missionary BS!

I dont' have a web link for what I was talking about but I did some searches and I found other accounts. In one you can find the need of the two witnesses in the tractate shabbat (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/introshabbat.html) and the other includes debates about witnesses and the need for the testimony of someone's character in case the witness is unknown (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/rh2.html).

You accuse Jews of erasing the proofs about the historicy of Jesus. That's lame! You have no proof of that and I can easily question Paul's motives since he was in fact starting a new religion. Paul was a missionary for crying out loud!

[zeemike]

29. I hope I can erase the confusion

The whole thing about witnesses is that are intentional and speak to the truth, unless of course they are false wittinesses.
The question at hand is whether Jesus was a real man and did live and whether there is evidence to that. I say that there is and point to 4 witnesses that say so. You say they are false wittiness because what they testify too is imposable and I know it is not.
So there we are.
And I do not accuse the Jews, and neither did Jesus because he and his whole family and disciples were Jews, but he did have an issue whit the religious leadership of that time who were obviously corrupt and laid a burden on the Jewish people of that time. It was the chief priest of that time that tried Jesus at night and violated many of the laws in doing so and it was his responsibility for His death not the Jews or the Romans.
But here today we accuse the Christians in general because of the wackiness of the religious leaders of our time, and ignore those that keep the commandments of Jesus to love one another, ans sweep them into the same tent as the fundies.

[Orrex]

23. It needs to be said

That a sizable number of the acts and miracles attributed to Jesus weren't witnessed by the Gospel authors but were in fact reported to them, sometimes years after the episodes purportedly took place.

Millennia-old Jewish law and wishful modern apologetics notwithstanding, very little of the Gospels would hold up in a court of law today; the events described therein are too fantastical and too poorly corroborated to be accepted. At best, we can say "Luke believed what he was writing," but that's hardly the same as saying that his writings are true or correct.

[TRYPHO]

27. But 4 groups of anonymous authors says its true..so it must be..

because thats way more than you need for a Jewish trial!

Well, er, no.

1 - they weren't Jewish
2 - they didn't take an oath (most Jews would NEVER take an oath in those days for fear they might accidently be mistaken and have to suffer the harsh penalties).
3 - they didn't agree at all.
4 - there were way way way more than 4 - the "catholic" church, chose to canonise just the synoptic gospels and John - with John being a total reversal, full of outragiously extravagant stories not mentioned in the synoptip gospels and happens to be the one the Catholic church uses. No wonder most Christians DONT use it where they've had sufficient education to know better - the Eastern Orthodoxy never accepted half the nonsense.
5 - the ends DONT justify the means, and the WINNER isn't always correct - the Catholic Chuch are NOT telling the truth, and just because the ROMAN empire was won-over to their side doesn't make their phallasy of the gospels any better than the others they chose to excommunicate, hide, renounce and otherise cover-up for 1950 odd years.

Things have changed now I'm afraid - the cats out of the bag - and in 50-100 years the face of Christianity will have to cope with the Gnostic gospels, or the whole MegaChur$h will crumble dust.

TRYPHO