(February 6, 2020 at 3:42 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.
Hello ColdComfort and welcome to the forums. Sorry if I missed your intro thread.
So..... what might be this 'Evidence' of which you speak?
Cheers.
I'm not really new. It's just been a while and I lose patience with most of you guys so I don't post very often or check in to read.. If your question implies what my dear friend Fake is saying, that there is no evidence, then you are intellectually negligent. See. I lose patience even though your post was perfectly polite.
In criminal trials judges instruct juries to consider all the evidence so to answer your question would require a very long post. But to zero in on one specific point: Often you read ' most biblical scholars say...' at which point the eyes roll back in my head. I'm in my sixties and the number of different historical Jesus's this tribe has come up with makes a very long list. That should give anyone pause instead of accepting what is being said by these professors in the same manner as Catholics accept what is said by Popes speaking ex cathedra. And they almost always state their conclusions with such certainty even though the conclusions change as often as they change their underwear.
To be more specific: Most biblical scholars will tell you that the synoptics were written by anonymous Christians and the names of apostles or apostolic men were added in the second century. I don't believe a word of it and I find the arguments surprisingly weak. I accept the evidence of Papias, Iraneaus the Muratorian canon and other early Christian writings. So St. Mark was the secretary of St. Peter, St. Luke the companion of St. Paul, and St Matthew an apostle. It's an important point and one you should think about for yourself rather than just repeating the conclusions of biblical scholars especially as those conclusions change so often.
In any event, it's evidence to be considered. To say there is none or to ask a question that implies you're not aware of any just won't do.
