RE: The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This
March 13, 2015 at 9:06 pm
(This post was last modified: March 13, 2015 at 9:14 pm by Lek.)
(March 13, 2015 at 7:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote: None of them ever name themselves in the gospels, nor do they claim to have met Jesus within them. The epigraphs of the gospels were added later according to church tradition and not due to the writers actually being named that. As for the epistles, the scholarly consensus is that they were written by two different authors, neither of them Peter. You can't argue with the facts, here; a little knowledge of biblical history puts the falsity to these intuitive ideas that the names on the gospels belonged to the writers.
So why do I know this, and you don't?
You're calling things "facts" that you don't know are facts, about the writers and the dates of the writings. You are right about the naming of the gospels after the fact, but the church didn't just pull names out of the hat. It was after extensive study and investigation, and they lived about 2,000 years closer to the time of the writings that we do. I'd might be able to agree with you about 2 Peter, but not 1 Peter. There is not a consensus, but a split opinion from modern scholars. I'll still go with the early church.
(March 13, 2015 at 7:58 pm)abaris Wrote: We're talking about 40 years after the event and that's taking it generous. Do you know what life expectancy was back then in that particular region? Do you think one of the apostles travelled all the way to Greece or Rome to tell their tale? By all accounts these weren't educated or wealthy people.
Here we go again, calling something a "fact" that is not a fact. There is no consensus on the dates of the writings of the books of the new testament. Yes, I do think that more than one of the apostles traveled to Greece or Rome, and farther, to write and evangelize. Tradition says that Peter died in Rome.
Quote:No, the authors did what all the historians did in their times. They collected tales and made up their own story out of everything they were told. That's how it was done in these days. It's not like today, where a journalist goes through the check and recheck process or a historian, who's critical about his sources.
And before you ask, same goes for Roman or Greek secular authors.
And if what they were told was the truth?