The Deceptive Mechanisms

[FallentoReason]

You would look at the first copy and see if the additions at all conflict with its content. The reliability of the first copy doesn't change. I don't see what this has to do with the Gospels. There are what, three chapters in their entirety that were added a few years later? All the critical components are written within thirty years of Jesus' life--and supported by outside sources. An "addition" ten years after that point is hardly any more likely to be fictional.

I wasn't aware that the Gospels were supported by outside sources. Can you point to a single historian who documents a miracle worker causing an uproar to every town he went, who also had hundreds following him at times?

So one question: Say “Mark” was discovered to have been written in A.D.33. Would that make you consider it less likely to be fictional?

Unfortunately, your "outside sources" place the Gospel firmly at 70 A.D. or later. Therefore, your question is purely a hypothetical with no real bearing to reality (like the Gospels themselves coincidentally).

It's quite the romantic idea that we're supposedly reading genuine history in the Gospels. That was my mindset as a Christian, but sometimes we just have to wake up and smell the roses. The "outside sources" don't support the Gospels in any way. I don't know where you got that idea from.

[Undeceived]

[Dee Dee Ramone]

I’m waiting for an answer to my question. Suppose a gospel was discovered to have been written in A.D.33. Would you consider it less likely to be fictional?

Suppose it's not hypothetical and Jesus would be singing hallelujah while nailed to the cross, than praise the lord.

[FallentoReason]

[Undeceived]

Besides that, are you aware of the Council of Nicea, where basically a bunch of people got together 300 years after the fact and inserted or removed into/from canon a bunch of shit in the bible, which led to the bible as we know it today? In other words, the bible has been cherry-picked after the fact. By men who stood to gain the most from it; power, sway, and influence. Because, funny thing, they did; it was called the beginning of the catholic church, now one of the most powerful institutions in the world and the face of Christianity for over a millenia.

Long before councils were ever convened, Christians, especially local church elders, were constantly collecting, evaluating and deciding which of the many writings of their day carried the authority of the apostles (Cf. Colossians 4:16; 2 Peter 3:15). The question asked of any writing to be read in the churches was: To what extent is this book (epistle, narrative, apocalypse, or gospel) an authentic and pure representation of the life and teachings of Jesus and His apostles? Thus, as Donald Guthrie puts it, "The content of the canon was determined by general usage, not by authoritarian pronouncement."

The Christian Church didn't gain real political power until the Middle Ages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire 150 years later. There was little power or money to be gained. Rather, the council was held to unify the church after Constantine (at last) legalized Christianity. 

And you don't feel ANY suspicion about this?

Should my being skeptical compel me to deny scripture? Are there specific reasons you reject the Bible's authenticity or are you saying something along the lines of "It's possible this could all be one big conspiracy, so I won't give it a chance until it's proved not to be"?

---

Tacitus: writing in the late first century or early second (I can't remember which and honestly I can't be bothered doing your research) merely voices what the Christians believed at the time. He wasn't a contemporary of Jesus therefore his guess is as good as anyone's.

Lucian: was born in 120 A.D. and therefore is an even worse source for Jesus. Again, it sounds like he's telling me what Christians at the time believed. Nothing new to see.

Babylonian Talmud: the Mishnah was composed around 200 A.D. and the Gemara in 500 A.D... yeah, no.

So you're saying Christians edited these? Would that be all the copies (aimed at the their contemporaries) or just the copies that survived to our day? Or do you believe a writer of history would scribble down hearsay?

Josephus: you can do this one at home on your own. Hint: observant Jew, dissonance.

What does being an observant Jew have to do with Christianity? In the Gospels, it's the observant Jews that find it hardest to enter the Kingdom of God.

[FallentoReason]

So you're saying Christians edited these? Would that be all the copies (aimed at the their contemporaries) or just the copies that survived to our day? Or do you believe a writer of history would scribble down hearsay?

No, I didn't say that. I said that the author is voicing what a Christian most likely told them OR what they heard from others about Christians. None of this gives you a solid bearing for determining stuff about Jesus because as far as we know, not one author in history has ever met Jesus for themselves, NT anonymous authors involved.

What does being an observant Jew have to do with Christianity? In the Gospels, it's the observant Jews that find it hardest to enter the Kingdom of God.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Here's an example that might help you find the answer:

I'm an avid fan of football team A. I have been all these years.

Team B is undoubtedly the best team out there. They have a good goalkeeper, solid attacking line and an elegant form of game play. Team B will win the championship this year.

[Undeceived]

I’m waiting for an answer to my question. Suppose a gospel was discovered to have been written in A.D.33. Would that make you consider it less likely to be fictional?

If the authorship could be confidently established and it was someone trustworthy (as opposed to randoms as it happens to be currently) then there could be something worth looking into.

Do you know of any historians alive and writing about Judea between 30 and 33 AD?

[FallentoReason]

Do you know of any historians alive and writing about Judea between 30 and 33 AD?

Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenistic Jew whose life spanned exactly that of Jesus' alleged life. He is the only historian to provide us with a contemporary account of Pontius Pilate and the events around the Mediterranean -- Judea included.

Not one word of a crucified messiah sadly.

[Undeceived]

as far as we know, not one author in history has ever met Jesus for themselves, NT anonymous authors involved.

Are you denying Peter met Jesus? Or Luke or John? There is strong evidence they are the writers, but again you're ignoring the evidence because it's apparently not strong enough.

[FallentoReason]

as far as we know, not one author in history has ever met Jesus for themselves, NT anonymous authors involved.

Are you denying Peter met Jesus?

The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.[1]

Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most[who?] biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[3] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[4]

Let's first establish who wrote what.

Or Luke or John?

The Gospels came to us anonymously. This is fact, unless you think "tradition" is reliable, but I'm sure you already have enough problems of your own against the Catholic Church.

There is strong evidence they are the writers, but again you're ignoring the evidence because it's apparently not strong enough.

No, please, I'd like to see the evidence.