The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[The Reality Salesman01]

Lek, you really ought to watch these videos:

http://youtu.be/70SYwkoH_yc

http://youtu.be/_Q37NhrCPNo

[Brakeman]

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?

If you've ever been on the internet, you know that anonymity brings out the worst in mankind. With the bible authors, their anonymity signals a grave problem for the historicity of the events. In the same way a living resident of Tokyo could counter as rubbish any story that Godzilla had destroyed the town in the 60's, the anonymity and the unknown timing take away the natural public corrections that would have occurred had the story been contemporary and local. If jesus had been actually as widely recognized in the middle east as portrayed, art in the form of statues, carvings, and pottery would have been filled with his images. What other story would an artist in Nazareth, Jerusalem, and other bible locations tell as opposed to the jesus they had seen? What other story would the literate of these cities write? But of course nothing contemporary has ever been found, only a fanciful anonymous story, dated conveniently past the lifetimes of any that could have directly countered it.

You state the fallback excuse that the "holy ghost" told the writers the exact details, but then you would have to explain why the holy ghost chose these men in an extra biblical manner. The bible is supposed to be the entire word of god and in it's completeness, it would have referred to how god intended to relay his message by ghostly visits. Why tell us why details of who begat who are important, yet mentioning god's intended pathway of authorship and message conveyance isn't important enough to mention?

If the "holy ghost" can tell specific words and sentences to a few anonymous middle eastern Greeks, why can't he tell you the narrative directly? What need does the ghost have of a book? Why can't you have a real conversation with him right now? Why can you ask him the authors' names in a prayer right now and then give us the answer???

[Mr Greene]

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.

OK that seems a reasonably objective assessment.

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.

Then you add this which utterly undermines your own position...

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

For myself that would require corroborating physical evidence regarding large sections of the OT where the text and archaeology directly contradict each other.

[JesusHChrist]

And Lek, who was the eyewitness when Jesus went off with Satan and they had their little talk?

Who was the eyewitness when they were all asleep in the garden (of course Jeez was awake, but he didn't think it necessary to write anything down)?

You must admit, at least some of the stories could not possibly be written from first hand accounts and nothing more than literary devices. There are others as well. Keep digging....

As for the Holy Spirit's involvement, read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus and see if you still think that is a sustainable position. The Holy Spirit was not the most competent of editors.

[Esquilax]

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?

But we weren't talking about whether you should believe in Christ or not, dude. We were talking about whether the gospel records are eyewitness accounts, a question in which knowing the identity of the authors is a necessary condition. Without knowing who they were, there's literally no way to tell whether they were truly eyewitnesses.

Does that constitute an argument against the religion? Only kinda. See, it should definitely give you reason to pause and doubt, and in combination with everything else wrong with the gospels I'd definitely not believe a word of it, but in isolation it's just one piece of evidence.

[abaris]

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

What difference does it make? We don't know anything about Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. We don't know who they were and what they stood for. So their name is secondary. They don't exist outside their own writing. As opposed to the Roman authors where we at least know a little bit of their biography.

[Lek]

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?

We all know the answer here Rob. It all comes down to whether or not we choose to believe the writers and those who carried on that belief, and whether God is at work in revealing himself to us. We can all go home now.

[robvalue]

Err... What? I guess you're done with objective study then

As I've said before, belief is a state of mind. You can't choose to believe they were guided by God. Either you choose to say you believe that, or else you actually do believe it for another reason. You may not even be aware what the other reason is.

[Lek]

Err... What? I guess you're done with objective study then

I believe that the scientific and historical facts have been put on the table and there's not much more to consider in that regard. What other evidence is there to see? I didn't come to believe because I read the bible and decided to believe in Jesus because of that. I was raised to believe as a child, and now that I'm an adult I've stopped and am taking an honest assessment of why I believe. I have no parents coercing me into believing. It's all up to God and me. I know the science, the historical criticism, and the scriptures. You can only examine the evidence for so long then you have to either "crap or get off the pot", as they say.

I know you guys hate these emotional responses to the existence of God, but regardless this is a true experience for me. A few days, or maybe a week ago, I had just finished a discussion with you and some others, when the realization came that I wasn't going to come up with any natural proof for God. I began to consider the possibility of chucking my faith and decided to step outside where I could think more clearly. It was beautiful sunny day and I went out into the backyard, looked around, saw some birds flying overhead, and I immediately was aware of the existence of God in the world that I was standing in. It was no magical experience, but just a realization that came to me from the evidence I was viewing. I believe God was there, but he didn't come down from the sky and hit me over the head or strike me with lightning.

I'm obsessive-compulsive and can never settle for an answer, so I'm always searching for something. Most people seem to be able to settle in and go with it, but my faith is, and always be, a work-in-progress.

[robvalue]

OK. Well, there's not much more I can say then. I hope your faith makes you happy If you are interested in a frank discussion about it in the future, I'll be happy to oblige.