What would an error in the bible even show?

[Undeceived]

Bingo. The earliest gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, so the writers relied on the memorization of oral stories, each other's gospels, and their respective sects and their own beliefs. The earliest canonical gospel, the Gospel of Mark, is dated around 70 AD, forty years after the death of Christ. Forty years of oral stories is effectively playing a lifelong game of telephone.

If the Gospel accounts are indeed true, and there was an explosion of converts, there existed no immediate need to write a report. Preaching in synagogues was the best way to spread word. Once churches began forming in Gentile nations without a constant eyewitness around for guidance, people needed a text to refer to. Enter the Gospel of Mark--written factually and in a manner that Gentile Romans would understand. Mark explains Jewish customs (7:2–4; 15:42), translates Aramaic words (3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 15:22,34) and has a special interest in persecution and martyrdom (8:34–38; 13:9–13)—subjects of special concern to Roman believers.

Following Mark’s Gospel, Matthew sets out to prove to young Jewish readers that Jesus is their Messiah. He has more quotations from or allusions to the OT than any other NT author. He traces Jesus’ descent from Abraham, does not explain Jewish customs, and uses Jewish terminology like “kingdom of heaven” and “Father in heaven,” where “heaven” reveals the Jewish reverential reluctance to use the name of God. He wants Jews born after Christ’s ministry to not only hear the report but what the life of Jesus means.

Luke’s Gospel is directed specifically to Theophilus (1:3). The use of “most excellent” with the name indicates an individual, and supports the idea that he was a Roman official or at least of high position and wealth. He was possibly Luke’s patron, responsible for seeing that the writings were copied and distributed. Such a dedication to the publisher was common at the time. Luke may not have considered putting pen to ink at all until Theophilus’ offer to fund the operation. The Gospel is, in particular, written to strengthen the faith of believers and to answer the attacks of unbelievers. It was presented to displace some ill-founded reports about Jesus (see 1:1-4). Luke wanted to commend the preaching of the gospel to the whole world.

John’s dedication to showing who Jesus is through lengthy discourses and “I am” claims suggest a heresy going on at the time. Gnosticism arose about then, questioning the divinity of Christ and who Jesus said he was. John plainly states, “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” With more doubters came a firmer response.

Each of these Gospel writers had a clear purpose in mind, and it was not simply “to write it down.” They saw ignorance. They saw denial. And they answered with what they knew to be the truth. Matthew and John had the added bonus of being eyewitnesses, meaning they did not have to rely on “memorization of oral stories.”

[Marnie]

Bingo. The earliest gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, so the writers relied on the memorization of oral stories, each other's gospels, and their respective sects and their own beliefs. The earliest canonical gospel, the Gospel of Mark, is dated around 70 AD, forty years after the death of Christ. Forty years of oral stories is effectively playing a lifelong game of telephone.

If the Gospel accounts are indeed true, and there was an explosion of converts, there existed no immediate need to write a report. Preaching in synagogues was the best way to spread word. Once churches began forming in Gentile nations without a constant eyewitness around for guidance, people needed a text to refer to. Enter the Gospel of Mark--written factually and in a manner that Gentile Romans would understand. Mark explains Jewish customs (7:2–4; 15:42), translates Aramaic words (3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 15:22,34) and has a special interest in persecution and martyrdom (8:34–38; 13:9–13)—subjects of special concern to Roman believers.

Following Mark’s Gospel, Matthew sets out to prove to young Jewish readers that Jesus is their Messiah. He has more quotations from or allusions to the OT than any other NT author. He traces Jesus’ descent from Abraham, does not explain Jewish customs, and uses Jewish terminology like “kingdom of heaven” and “Father in heaven,” where “heaven” reveals the Jewish reverential reluctance to use the name of God. He wants Jews born after Christ’s ministry to not only hear the report but what the life of Jesus means.

Luke’s Gospel is directed specifically to Theophilus (1:3). The use of “most excellent” with the name indicates an individual, and supports the idea that he was a Roman official or at least of high position and wealth. He was possibly Luke’s patron, responsible for seeing that the writings were copied and distributed. Such a dedication to the publisher was common at the time. Luke may not have considered putting pen to ink at all until Theophilus’ offer to fund the operation. The Gospel is, in particular, written to strengthen the faith of believers and to answer the attacks of unbelievers. It was presented to displace some ill-founded reports about Jesus (see 1:1-4). Luke wanted to commend the preaching of the gospel to the whole world.

John’s dedication to showing who Jesus is through lengthy discourses and “I am” claims suggest a heresy going on at the time. Gnosticism arose about then, questioning the divinity of Christ and who Jesus said he was. John plainly states, “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” With more doubters came a firmer response.

Each of these Gospel writers had a clear purpose in mind, and it was not simply “to write it down.” They saw ignorance. They saw denial. And they answered with what they knew to be the truth. Matthew and John had the added bonus of being eyewitnesses, meaning they did not have to rely on “memorization of oral stories.”

Matthew and John were not eyewitnesses! Their names are not even Matthew and John! Matthew wrote his gospel using Mark's Gospel and a possible hypothetical gospel called the Q-source. The Gospel of Matthew was written after the Gospel of Mark near the end of the first Century. John was also written near the end of the first century.

Given the lifespan back then, the persecution of Christians, and the fall of Jerusalem it would be next to impossible for anyone to have been alive near the end of the first century who was an original disciple and an eyewitness to Jesus.

Each gospel author was an individual with a distinct writing style and a belief system. They highlighted the points they would like to highlight, used their own distinct literary technique, and added their own and their group's theological beliefs to their gospels.

May I suggest to you Henry Wansborough's works. He's a Friar and a New Testament Scholar.

http://www.henrywansbrough.com/booklets.shtml

[Undeceived]

If the Gospel accounts are indeed true, and there was an explosion of converts, there existed no immediate need to write a report. Preaching in synagogues was the best way to spread word. Once churches began forming in Gentile nations without a constant eyewitness around for guidance, people needed a text to refer to. Enter the Gospel of Mark--written factually and in a manner that Gentile Romans would understand. Mark explains Jewish customs (7:2–4; 15:42), translates Aramaic words (3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 15:22,34) and has a special interest in persecution and martyrdom (8:34–38; 13:9–13)—subjects of special concern to Roman believers.

Following Mark’s Gospel, Matthew sets out to prove to young Jewish readers that Jesus is their Messiah. He has more quotations from or allusions to the OT than any other NT author. He traces Jesus’ descent from Abraham, does not explain Jewish customs, and uses Jewish terminology like “kingdom of heaven” and “Father in heaven,” where “heaven” reveals the Jewish reverential reluctance to use the name of God. He wants Jews born after Christ’s ministry to not only hear the report but what the life of Jesus means.

Luke’s Gospel is directed specifically to Theophilus (1:3). The use of “most excellent” with the name indicates an individual, and supports the idea that he was a Roman official or at least of high position and wealth. He was possibly Luke’s patron, responsible for seeing that the writings were copied and distributed. Such a dedication to the publisher was common at the time. Luke may not have considered putting pen to ink at all until Theophilus’ offer to fund the operation. The Gospel is, in particular, written to strengthen the faith of believers and to answer the attacks of unbelievers. It was presented to displace some ill-founded reports about Jesus (see 1:1-4). Luke wanted to commend the preaching of the gospel to the whole world.

John’s dedication to showing who Jesus is through lengthy discourses and “I am” claims suggest a heresy going on at the time. Gnosticism arose about then, questioning the divinity of Christ and who Jesus said he was. John plainly states, “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” With more doubters came a firmer response.

Each of these Gospel writers had a clear purpose in mind, and it was not simply “to write it down.” They saw ignorance. They saw denial. And they answered with what they knew to be the truth. Matthew and John had the added bonus of being eyewitnesses, meaning they did not have to rely on “memorization of oral stories.”

Matthew and John were not eyewitnesses! Their names are not even Matthew and John!

Do you have backing for such a claim?
Take a look at this page: http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswe...08-07.html
John claims to be an eyewitness in his Gospel (see bottom). He shows his identity as John by referring to himself is "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Early writers Irenaeus and Tertullian confirm John's authorship. John also provides touches such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (12:3)--reflecting the recollections of an eyewitness.
Church tradition makes Matthew the writer of the Gospel of Matthew. We already know that the man Matthew the Evangelist was one of the Twelve Apostles. Papias of Hierapolis confirms Matthew as being the author.

Given the lifespan back then, the persecution of Christians, and the fall of Jerusalem it would be next to impossible for anyone to have been alive near the end of the first century who was an original disciple and an eyewitness to Jesus.

According to Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem, John died of natural causes "in great old age in Ephesus" at the beginning of the second century. He had been exiled to Patmos, where he escaped persecution and wrote Revelation. The Gospel of John was written in Ephesus, where he reportedly lived the remainder of his life.
Unless, of course, you think everyone who wrote history was in cahoots and made this all up.

[fr0d0]

What would it show? It would show that the claim made by Christians that "the Bible is true" is wrong. It would show that the Bible is either not the word of God, or the word of a lying or idiotic God. It would show that you cannot just assume the Bible is correct (though to be truthful, you shouldn't assume this about any book). It would demonstrate that "faith" in the Bible and Christianity is misplaced.

What if like me, and very many Christians, you already consider the bible to be potentially erreant? I came to belief through scrutinising it for error. I still look at it critically, as I see the bible encourages us to do. How do you account for the church fathers' labour over what should be included? I mean, how do you square this with such a black and white position? I think your position needs qualifiers, then i might agree with you ;-)

[Minimalist]

How do you account for the church fathers' labour over what should be included?

Politics.

[Cato]

John claims to be an eyewitness in his Gospel (see bottom). He shows his identity as John by referring to himself is "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Early writers Irenaeus and Tertullian confirm John's authorship. John also provides touches such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (12:3)--reflecting the recollections of an eyewitness.

So John is an eyewitness because he commented on a fragrance. This seems remarkable in light of the fact that he had nothing to say about all the other dead Jews that popped out of the grave at the time of Jesus' death. Something's amiss.

[Marnie]

Matthew and John were not eyewitnesses! Their names are not even Matthew and John!

Do you have backing for such a claim?
Take a look at this page: http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswe...08-07.html
John claims to be an eyewitness in his Gospel (see bottom). He shows his identity as John by referring to himself is "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Early writers Irenaeus and Tertullian confirm John's authorship. John also provides touches such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (12:3)--reflecting the recollections of an eyewitness.
Church tradition makes Matthew the writer of the Gospel of Matthew. We already know that the man Matthew the Evangelist was one of the Twelve Apostles. Papias of Hierapolis confirms Matthew as being the author.

Given the lifespan back then, the persecution of Christians, and the fall of Jerusalem it would be next to impossible for anyone to have been alive near the end of the first century who was an original disciple and an eyewitness to Jesus.

According to Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem, John died of natural causes "in great old age in Ephesus" at the beginning of the second century. He had been exiled to Patmos, where he escaped persecution and wrote Revelation. The Gospel of John was written in Ephesus, where he reportedly lived the remainder of his life.
Unless, of course, you think everyone who wrote history was in cahoots and made this all up.

I only could skim through the article. I find it hard to read material so clearly lobbying for one point regardless of what history and modern biblical scholarship have to say.

Traditional authorship claims were made without any knowledge of textual analysis and dating. Church traditions and tradition biblical authorship claims are factually baseless. The church fathers may have as well written some praenomina on slips of paper and drawn from a hat to find the author's names. The tradition of associating John the disciple arose in the beginning of the second century, nearly a century after the death of Christ.

As I have said before the author we call Matthew was also not an eyewitness. While I'm at it neither was Mark. Matthew clearly used Mark's gospel and likely other sources while writing his gospel. An eyewitness would simply not have to use other sources while writing about their own experiences.

If John was a disciple of Jesus and lived until the beginning of the second century, he lived for an absolutely absurd amount of time. He would be near or older than one hundred years old at his death. That is old for now, back then he'd be one of the oldest people alive.

[Minimalist]

Early writers Irenaeus and Tertullian

Early?

Irenaeus wrote in the late 2d century...allegedly 150 years after your godboy would have lived. Tertullian died roughly a quarter of a century after him.

This shit was still in its formative stages at that point....as Tertullian was the first to coin the phrase "trinity."

[Undeceived]

Marnie,
I'm still waiting for proof. Does your opinion triumph history writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD?

[Marnie]

Marnie,
I'm still waiting for proof. Does your opinion triumph history writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD?

Proof of what exactly? This is not merely my opinion. I am presenting the views of mainstream biblical scholarship. 2nd and third century authors are not authority sources on biblical authorship. Their claims of authorship are widely held to be false by modern scholars. They were writing many decades to even a century or more after the death of Christ and the disciples.

You can rely on men writing out of ignorance 2,000 years ago. I'll rely on modern scholarship.