Again, to me, Christianity…at least the original version of Christianity…is not a text-based movement; it’s an event-based movement. And the real issue is: is the Gospel of Matthew, or the Gospel of Mark, or the Gospel of Luke, or the Gospel of John…any one of the four…a reliable account of actual events…?
Because if any one of these four Gospels is a reliable account of actual events, then what it says about Jesus is true. And if what it says about Jesus is true, does it make sense that we should lean in…?
The narrative of Jesus is not a Bible story; the narrative of Jesus is why there is the Bible. Jesus is the reason there is the Bible. If there’d been no resurrection, there wouldn’t have been a Jesus movement. And if there’d been no Jesus movement, there wouldn’t have been anyone to document the event of the resurrection.
And if there’d been no resurrection, there’d be no ‘the Bible’. Jesus’ earliest followers found all four of them to be reliable accounts of actual events, and that’s why they were included in the collection of documents that came to be known as the Bible. So if even one of these accounts of Jesus’ life is a reliable account of actual events, does it make sense that we should we lean in…?
