(August 30, 2018 at 2:41 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(August 30, 2018 at 1:45 pm)SteveII Wrote: Well, if you want to move away from my hypothetical, fine.Because they are quite uncertain. Most of the writings were certainly NOT made by those claimed in the titles.
1. Why do you think the authorship was uncertain?
Quote:Certainly the people at the time knew who wrote the gospels.No, most people had no idea who wrote the texts they were reading.
Quote:Do you think they were left on a doorstep? Was Paul (a well established author) certain that Jesus rose from the dead?
Paul most certainly never met Jesus. So, no, he was not certain. In fact, his teaching directly contradict those of other writings.
Quote:2. Superstitious society? Isn't that question begging?Not at all. Look at the prevalence of mystery religions during that time and region. it was *clearly* a very superstitious society. Christianity just falls into the general pattern.
Quote:Do you imagine that the people of the NT didn't know the difference between people who survived crucifixion and those that did not?
I think they had no idea whether the events happened or not. Most of those reading had no connection to the authors or to the region.
Quote:3. Political benefit? 100% the opposite. Most early church leaders had hard lives with bad endings.According to legends, which are mostly fictional. The period when the texts were collected was long after the time of the described 'events' and the collection was done at the approval and instigation of the emperor.
Quote:4. Different accounts by different authors is EXACTLY what you want. No evidence of growing over time.The earliest texts of Mark have no resurrection. Matthew and Luke have one, but with differing details. Those three are clearly written with a common source (gospel of Thomas?) John has a complex theology. That is the growth of a legend, pure and simple.
Quote:We can skip to the end--you can't win this argument. The most you can say is that there is not enough evidence for YOU to believe. Fine. I don't doubt that--however I do doubt you are even familiar with the contents. What you cannot say is that it is not evidence for other's belief in God. Because in order to do so, you would have to prove it wrong--but that is simply not possible.
Your second paragraph just proves your question begging reasoning you employed from the beginning: miracles don't happen, the NT does not contain miracles so there is no evidence of miracles.
The vast majority of scholars who study this regard the texts as questionable at best. Except for *some* of the writings of Paul (who did not witness the teachings of Jesus or the resurrection), the authorship is uniformly in doubt.
Comparison with other superstitions at the time shows remarkable similarities (gnosticism, neo-platonism, Dionysian mysteries, etc). That adds to the overall skepticism that should be part of any textual analysis.
And, given the range of beliefs people have had over history, it is a good idea to take any stories of a supernatural with a large grain of salt. if the rest of the evidence is questionable (and it is in all cases), it can properly be rejected, just as we do claims that the God Pan directed Julius Caesar across the Rubicon.
1. No no no. First, Luke wrote Luke and Acts. So, no mystery there. It is well understood that the actual apostles did not pen the gospels. The names came from which apostle's group of disciples produced the books. There is absolutely no reason to think that the provenance of the gospels were unknown at the time and every reason to believe that the first century church knew exactly where they came from (they held them in high regard). Your statement shows a real lack of knowledge of what you are talking about.
2. You are repeating crap from an internet list. We are talking about 100% Jews. They had no "mystery religions". In fact, they had one of the most stable/thorough/written/studied/developed religions in the world at the time.
3. More internet nonsense. The books of the NT go back to the first century. Even Bart Erhman agrees that the text are pretty much as they were when they were written. Political motivation...please, that is fringe nonsense only repeated in atheist echo chambers.
4. Not so. Have you ever read the actual passage in Mark leading up to the shorter ending in Mark 16:8? Tell me where Mark did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead. It is good there are differences. If there were no differences, you would be claiming a conspiracy. Same basic result in every gospel. You can't come close to showing they did not have the same understanding of the events. You mentioned Thomas as a source--this shows you really don't know what you are talking about. Growth of legend? Paul wrote to the churches that ALREADY believed the resurrection of Jesus starting in 50AD. How do you account for that? I'll say it again: we have firm proof that people throughout the Roman empire believed that Jesus rose from the dead in 50AD.
5. No. At best you found scholars who agree with you. Scholars with BIAS (although some try harder than others). Because really, if you do not believe in God, what spin are you going to put on the Gospels? You actually look for reasons why the authors did not mean what they said.
This is so typical. You know practically nothing about the NT or its provenance. But that does not stop you from very clearly affirming it cannot be even considered evidence for God. Well done.