The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[The Reality Salesman01]

I don't believe that the accounts in the gospels were not from eyewitnesses. Saying that eyewitnesses didn't write the gospels doesn't mean that the accounts were not from people who viewed the events.

... And, of course, I believe in the intervention of the Holy Spirit in ensuring that the bible included the truth which God intended to be relayed to us.

So you found out that those books were written 30 years after the alleged events took place. You then concluded that this was just as reliable as an actual eyewitness and then you shored all that up with the unsupported conclusion that God helped them write it 30 years later (for some reason) and you feel confident that God wouldn't let those guys screw it up. That's objective? That's nonsense Lek. You can do better. I don't feel like you even want to research this honestly. Part of doing objective research means you have to be willing to revise your belief. But you found that your belief was false and then reinforced it with assumptions and selection bias.

[abaris]

I realize that my presentation isn't very scholarly, but it does state where I stand on the matter. And, of course, I believe in the intervention of the Holy Spirit in ensuring that the bible included the truth which God intended to be relayed to us.

Yeah, that's your belief and that's OK. But you will understand that it's not enough to convince me of any hiostoricity of the events. There's no cleu who the actual writers of the gospels were. So we're pretty much in the dark if they had an agenda and what that agenda actually was. We also don't know why these stories have been collected. Did they do it under their own steam or did someone commission the books? If so, what did that someone hope to gain?

[Esquilax]

Having said this, I don't believe that the accounts in the gospels were not from eyewitnesses. Saying that eyewitnesses didn't write the gospels doesn't mean that the accounts were not from people who viewed the events. We don't know who wrote the sources, such as Q, that the synoptic writers relied on, but they were very likely eyewitnesses. If the apostle John was the source for the gospel of John, then the source was obviously an eyewitness to Jesus.

If you don't know who wrote the books, or who made the accounts within them, how can you possibly say whether they were eyewitnesses or not? The gospels could have been written yesterday and you wouldn't know it, with the amount of information you have.

[robvalue]

It's very good you are looking into it in more detail Lek.

But as I feared, you're falling back on the argument from ignorance again: you can't prove they aren't eyewitnesses. It's a logical fallacy, just assuming an unsupported, unfalsifiable conclusion because it's the one you want. All objectivity is out the window once you think like that.

[Lek]

It's very good you are looking into it in more detail Lek.

But as I feared, you're falling back on the argument from ignorance again: you can't prove they aren't eyewitnesses. It's a logical fallacy, just assuming an unsupported, unfalsifiable conclusion because it's the one you want. All objectivity is out the window once you think like that.

If it was proven that the authors of the gospels were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, would you then believe the christian message?

[SteelCurtain]

If it was proven that the authors of the gospels were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, would you then believe the christian message?

This is a ridiculous hypothetical. If it were proven that the gospel writers were M, M, L, and J, then I would believe that M, M, L, and J wrote the gospels.

If it were proven that George R.R. Martin wrote A Song of Ice and Fire would you believe in dragons and white walkers?

[Ravenshire]

If it was proven that the authors of the gospels were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, would you then believe the christian message?

I don't think anyone here gives two shits about who the authors actually were. It's far more about what they wrote and whether they got it right. If someone could provide evidence of what happened it wouldn't matter if the gospels were written by Beavis and Butthead when they "borrowed" Mr. Peabody's WayBack machine. The problem you, and every other person claiming the truth of the gospels have, is that there is simply no extra-biblical evidence.

Jeebus wrote not a single word aside from some scratching in the dirt.
No execution order despite the Romans being methodical record keepers.
No contemporary historians recording any of the extraordinary events claimed in the buy-bull.

Sadly, for you and any other trying to convince us, all you have for extra-biblical references are a few likely forgeries.

[Lek]

I don't think anyone here gives two shits about who the authors actually were.

That's the point of my question. So why would me discovering that the authors of the gospels are anonymous make me stop believing in Christ?

[SteelCurtain]

That's the point of my question. So why would me discovering that the authors of the gospels are anonymous make me stop believing in Christ?

Nobody is saying that it should.

What we are saying is that what is said inside said writings is more suspect when we don't know who the authors are, and that the confidence with which you repeat what is said within is unfounded.

What we are saying that using what is said in the gospels as evidence of anything is ridiculous if we don't even know who wrote them. If we don't know who wrote them, how can we make any assumptions as to their relationship to the stories and accounts within?

[robvalue]

Your question in no way addresses my criticism of your position. You said you'd look at it objectively, and you have instantly retreated to the argument from ignorance, exactly as I warned against to begin with. If you don't want to look at it objectively, or care if your arguments are valid, that is fine. But if you do, I would hope you'd do it properly.

If I found out who the authors were, it would not automatically mean I believed everything they wrote, no. Even if I knew they were eye witnesses. At best, it tells me what they believed.

Are you saying that all eye witness testimony is true?