Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 13, 2015 at 9:06 pm)Lek Wrote: You're calling things "facts" that you don't know are facts, about the writers and the dates of the writings.
I'm sorry you don't agree with the findings of the scholars that are educated and trained in these matters, but that's not my problem.
Quote: 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.
Actually, you're wrong. Just taking the book of Matthew as an example, the epigraph was added sometime in the second century, but the idea that this referred to the Matthew was added yet later still by Bishop Papias; the name was added before the idea that the Matthew in question was the apostle. Claiming that the two were concurrent shows simple ignorance of the history involved.
Quote: 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.
So basically you'll go with the people that tell you what you want to hear, rather than those with a more expansive technological and cultural apparatus, because the guys capable of producing more accurate results disagree with what you already believed before coming into the discussion. Your presuppositions do not lend more weight to the bald assertions of long dead ideologues.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
March 14, 2015 at 3:15 am (This post was last modified: March 14, 2015 at 3:18 am by robvalue.)
There is no evidence that any of the gospels are written by eyewitnesses, and plenty of evidence to support the contrary. This is well accepted, even among many christian bible scholars. To claim otherwise is to just hold to an argument from ignorance, saying it "might be true and you can't prove it isn't". That is a losing stance I'm afraid.
Of course, plenty of christians will just believe it's eye witness anyway, because they assume it is and have no interest in the actual facts of the matter.
If you really are interested in the historicity of the bible, we could teach you a lot about it. But if you're going to just assume what you want to be true about it is actually true, then we won't make any progress.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
March 14, 2015 at 7:57 am (This post was last modified: March 14, 2015 at 7:58 am by abaris.)
(March 13, 2015 at 9:06 pm)Lek Wrote: And if what they were told was the truth?
OK, personal story to illustrate how being critical of your sources works. When you study history, at least here in Europe, one of the first lessons is to be presented with a text, not longer than a paragraph. It bears no title, no date and no authorship. The text is genuine and describes a real event. Your task now is to determine WHEN, WHERE and WHY it was written by reading and analysing the writing. In my case it was from the back then still existing GDR. The author used certain keywords like dialectic pointing in that direction.
I capitalised the When, where and why, since these three questions are the pillars of historical research when it comes to texts. What did the world look like when the author set up to write his piece? What did society look like in his part of the world, when he wrote it? Ultimately, why did he feel the need to write about that particular event? Was it his decision or was he writing because someone tasked him with it?
Point is, every text can bear truths as well as lies as well as legends. They key is to filter and to be critical. I guess you wouldn't take a text from the former GDR at face value just because some historical figures match up with reality. But the same holds true for the gospels.
(February 27, 2015 at 3:30 pm)Norman Humann Wrote: Exactly. They cannot bear the fact that their precious fairy tale isn't supported by rational human beings. If they're catholic, I can almost guarantee that they will edit it out of their brain completely and respond with something along the lines of "you're looking at it wrong".
Jesus is exactly like Santa Claus. A commercialized and idealized version of someone who, if they were real, were far from the sugarcoated description.
I don't see what is so earth shattering here, from a Christian perspective?
"IF" you atheists are going to swing from non-belief to believing by these negative observations of Christ? That's the real anomaly... and irrational actions!
At least we stand our ground!
Have you ever been stumped by a brain teaser? Have ever been confronted with a task that you felt you were not capable of performing? An example of the sorts of tasks I'm asking about could range anywhere from a maintenance procedure on your car that you took to a shop or perhaps you took yourself or a loved one to the hospital for some reason. I'm wondering whether you recognize that while you may be very capable at performing and comprehending many things, there still areas that someone else could be better suited for due to your own lack of competence in that specific field. Even if I believed in God, I would feel compelled to point out that your understanding of the critical habits of thought is very wrong, and the amount of confidence you are placing in your conclusions is misplaced. It's misplaced much in the same way that it would be if you did not understand how to troubleshoot a knocking noise in your engine and instead of recognizing you had a broken piston rocker, you confidently diagnosed it to simply be low on fuel. There are, for all intents and purposes, mechanics here who continue to give you the correct diagnoses, but you continue to show that you are unaware and your lack of expertise is very evident. I was wondering if you were always unaware of your personal areas of ignorance or if this was an attitude you take on exclusively as a defense when confronted with objections toward your beliefs.
Okay. I'm going to do a more comprehensive study of the subject from christian and non-christian scholars and see what I come up with. I'm going to try to be totally objective.
(March 14, 2015 at 1:30 pm)Lek Wrote: Okay. I'm going to do a more comprehensive study of the subject from christian and non-christian scholars and see what I come up with. I'm going to try to be totally objective.
This is why I like you.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(March 14, 2015 at 1:30 pm)Lek Wrote: Okay. I'm going to do a more comprehensive study of the subject from christian and non-christian scholars and see what I come up with. I'm going to try to be totally objective.
You guys are making me work, and that's good. I pretty much stayed on the internet, but I consulted secular and christian sources. Anyway, it does appear that you are right in that none of the gospels were likely penned by the individuals they were named after. I'm not even sure that the church fathers believed they were, but rather that they believed they were written based on traditions that came down from these men. I had already known that the synoptic gospels all drew from a common source or sources. The gospel of John, of course, is attributed to a tradition that was likely passed on through a community associated directly with the apostle John.
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.
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.
(March 14, 2015 at 1:30 pm)Lek Wrote: Okay. I'm going to do a more comprehensive study of the subject from christian and non-christian scholars and see what I come up with. I'm going to try to be totally objective.
You guys are making me work, and that's good. I pretty much stayed on the internet, but I consulted secular and christian sources. Anyway, it does appear that you are right in that none of the gospels were likely penned by the individuals they were named after. I'm not even sure that the church fathers believed they were, but rather that they believed they were written based on traditions that came down from these men. I had already known that the synoptic gospels all drew from a common source or sources. The gospel of John, of course, is attributed to a tradition that was likely passed on through a community associated directly with the apostle John.
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.
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.
![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
