The Problem with the Gospels

[Eilonnwy]

Very nice post (how do you do the kudos thingy, and thanks to the people for mine),

When is the next installment ? and will you point out that no one really knows who wrote those gospels and the names were added buy christians much later than they were written to add "credibility" as they had none?

A

The little thumbs up at the bottom of each post.

I'm not planning a next installment, but I encourage people to expand on this or argue points they don't agree with (As rjh4 will undoubtedly do). So if you want to address something, please feel free. The fact that the Gospel authorship is unknown, and the names attributed later by the Catholic Church is a good point. I meant to include it, but I forgot it my hurry to incorporate many Gospel problems.

---

Chatpilot, excellent point. As I said, I was only touching the surface of the problems with the Gospels, and I also wrote the post at work, and had to do it as fast as possible while on break.

But yeah, I believe I did mention that Mark was written circa 70 C.E. (Common Era, for those who might be unfamiliar with it, it's the non-religious way of measuring years.) I didn't really go in to too many details about how this separation of about 35-40 years causes problems with the eye-witness aspect of having them since it's been addressed previously in discussions.

The Gospels definitely read as fiction. There are many scenes attributed to Jesus alone, and how could this be an eye-witness account if the Apostles weren't even there? That doesn't work with the idea that they are eye-witness accounts. If it's eye-witness, you would only write about what you saw, not what happened when you weren't there.