Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View "Eyewitnesses would have objected if the Gospels were untrue"
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 12:40AM #21
Ed.W
Posts: 9,407

May 4, 2012 -- 11:00PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 5:07PM, Ed.W wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 4:58PM, mainecaptain wrote:


GREAT, post Iwanta. Bravo. Sincerely




We need a better emoticon package.  I want a facepalm, a shaking head, and an eyeroll.  And in that order.  Laughing


If this one will function, I love him, especially that Italian hand gesturing...




Yea....I keep looking for finger down the throat make me gag too..........


sdp




I wish I was able to describe the one I REALLY would like.

Have you got anything I can sink my teeth into?
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 9:06AM #22
jonny42
Posts: 6,646

May 5, 2012 -- 12:28AM, Blü wrote:


jonny


The early church fathers attributed the gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.   It seems odd that if they didn't really know who wrote the gospels… that they would attribute two of them to non-Twelvers (Mark and Luke), and one to a minor disciple (Matthew).


A great deal of misattribution went on in the early centuries of Christianity.  That's why the NT contains so many pseudepigraphs.

As well, none of the gospels is credibly attributed in itself.  The names emerge from tradition and the usefulness of a handle, not from information.




I'd say that a great deal of misidentifying as pseudepigraphs occurs now.


As to how then names emerged, I'd say you're very likely going on far less "evidence" than those naming the gospels had.    That's why I find their attribution much more believable.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 10:23AM #23
Iwantamotto
Posts: 7,804

Ed.W:  I took him to mean there wasn't any writing say in AD 105 saying that the Gospels were not an accurate representation of history.


You took him to mean that no one took issue with the Gospel message.


It's kinda the same thing, though, isn't it?  I mean, my argument is precisely that as the argument in the title is eyewitnesses would've called out liars, and, well, they DO, then the "history" isn't all that "historical".  The message is part of the history.  The authors are saying that such-and-such said so-and-so, and the audience called shenanigans.  The reason this argument fails is that people DID call shenanigans.  The authors were clearly not into the argument of the fact inaccurate history would be called out, I think, because if they did, they were absolutely and pathetically stupid for leaving in all the parts where Jews were calling BS on the whole thing.


Rgurley4:  The Jewish nation were master historians, both in verbal traditions and ancient writings...extreme attention to detail in dictation, writing, and copying!


They were master historians?  More like master propagandists.  The entire OT is basically written to make a point.  Farmers and shepherds having irritability issues?  Come up with a story about two brothers who symbolize those different occupations and have those asshole farmers be the villains.  Any scene in an urban environment is described in the most negative ways possible.  Only the sweet, innocent shepherds could be heroes, even if they WERE assholes.  Jacob and David are lying, cheating assholes and they get high marks in the bible.  Only kings who sucked up to the priests were written up as "good kings", even if objectively they didn't really do much.


especially Peter


No one liked Peter.  Even Jesus called him Satan.  Why anyone would trust that self-serving, brown-nosing coward is beyond me.


The dates of actually penning and distributing the Gospels is interesting, but any delay after SEEING is not fatal to reliability.


I call shenanigans.  That FL killer did his crime, we knew about it relatively quickly, and people STILL doubt this guy's evil machinations.  If we heard about him ten years from now, you can imagine just how screwed up the stories would be.  He couldn't even hide his true intentions in the initial 911 call.  If we can't trust a guy's story three seconds in, how can we trust a guy's story after half a century or more?


2 Timothy 3: 14-17...All Scripture is God-breathed


Do you understand the flaw in trusting this statement?


2 Peter 1:20,21...Scripture came from SPIRITUALLY guided Men


My posts come spiritual guidance from God.  Do kindly prove me wrong.

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 12:26PM #24
Athlyes
Posts: 9

The title argument always made me think that its stating there is a network of Christian informants that can read and write placed in most or all major cities, towns and villages across the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. Then once someone writes something that isnt accurate and then 'publishes' it, one of these informants somehow learns of and reads a duplicate copy, and then either writes or travels to see the writer, regardless of where they might be and knowing exactly where they are. The informant then tells the writer their account isnt true, the writer thanks them for correcting them, and therefore we have accurate accounts.



It just doesnt sound entirely..convincing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 12:36PM #25
Blü
Posts: 24,026

jonny


As to how then names emerged, I'd say you're very likely going on far less "evidence" than those naming the gospels had.    That's why I find their attribution much more believable.


Notice how you're making that statement on faith, not evidence.


That's a difference between your view and mine.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 1:01PM #26
jonny42
Posts: 6,646

May 5, 2012 -- 12:36PM, Blü wrote:


jonny


As to how then names emerged, I'd say you're very likely going on far less "evidence" than those naming the gospels had.    That's why I find their attribution much more believable.


Notice how you're making that statement on faith, not evidence.


That's a difference between your view and mine.




Really?   When you say, "The names emerge from tradition and the usefulness of a handle, not from information,"… it means that you have evidence that they did not have information?


No.  It is by faith you argue that they didn't have information.   You have zero evidence as to what information they had or didn't have access to.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 5:24PM #27
micah68
Posts: 14

Another factor that I think comes into consideration here is that Jesus' followers certainly did not peacefully sit in Jerusalem until the AD70's and later, just waiting to write the gospels down. The "War of the Jews" or "the Great Revolt" happened from 66-73 AD and Rome decimated Jerusalem. The gospels themselves reflect Jesus telling his followers that when they see the armies surrounding Jerusalem, get out and flee to the hills. Mark doesn't seem to know about this, but Matthew and Luke do. It has been estimated that between 250,000 to 1.1 million Jews died in that war. Did any of Jesus' disciples heed his advice and survive the war? We don't know. It is, of course, the later church who gave the gospels their names; there is no internal witness to who wrote them.


I trust the gospels to reflect the kinds of things Jesus said and did, so I don't hold to biblical inerrancy and infallibility. But I think there is enough consensus found in the gospels to say that the heart of Jesus' teaching was about the kingdom of God and calling his listeners to the Great Commandments. Maybe, as Jesus is claimed to say in the gospels, if Israel had pursued the way of peace, the war would not have happened. But there is only so long that we humans are willing to live under a domination system.   

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 7:16PM #28
koolpoi
Posts: 5,930

May 4, 2012 -- 10:02AM, Athlyes wrote:

I see this argument come up sometimes. It basically states that at the time the Gospel accounts were being composed that if they contained 'falsehood', then eyewitnesses at the time would have spoken up and disagreed, and the Gospel writers would have changed their story.

I know there is a lot of issues with this statement but am finding it difficult to know where to start. What do you think the problems are with this statement?



I've heard some dubious claims (miracles by monks etc.) from Burmese Buddhists but no one seems to make any great effort to disprove such claims.There are those who are prepared to at least tacitly accept it and those who don't care enough to make the effort.How many people really care what some Burmese believe?In 1st century Palestine,how many really cared about the claims of a small Jewish sect?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 7:59PM #29
Blü
Posts: 24,026

jonny


No.  It is by faith you argue that they didn't have information.   You have zero evidence as to what information they had or didn't have access to. 


You certainly have no more information than I do.


On what basis, then, do you assert that they had good information?


And if they had good information, how do you explain all the pseudepigraphs in the NT? 


(By the way, it won't do to make an airy claim that you don't agree about pseudepigraphs - that just means you wish it weren't true.  You need to show the conclusions are wrong by offering a reasoned rebuttal in each case.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 8:14PM #30
jonny42
Posts: 6,646

May 5, 2012 -- 7:59PM, Blü wrote:


jonny


No.  It is by faith you argue that they didn't have information.   You have zero evidence as to what information they had or didn't have access to. 


You certainly have no more information than I do.


On what basis, then, do you assert that they had good information?


And if they had good information, how do you explain all the pseudepigraphs in the NT? 


(By the way, it won't do to make an airy claim that you don't agree about pseudepigraphs - that just means you wish it weren't true.  You need to show the conclusions are wrong by offering a reasoned rebuttal.)




I don't assert that they had good information.  I assert that it is likely that they had good reason  to name the gospels as they did.   It stands to reason that if they were to blindly name authors of the gospels, that they would give the names of members of the 12, and prominent ones at that.


But only John is a prominent 12er.   Mark and Luke are not witnesses, yet they are called the authors.   Therefore, it is likely that they had good reason not to name someone else, but to give these men authorship.   It indicates that the namers of the gospels are not simply out to attribute them to 12ers to earn credibility, but that they are intent on reporting who really wrote them.


Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that when they also give authorship to Matthew and John, that these two disciples are the authors.


---------------


As to "all the pseudigraphs," where is your reasoned explanation for calling them as such?   You don't give any; you simply call them as such.   And I say they aren't pseudepigraphs.   It's odd that you wouldn't give any reasoned explanation for calling them pseudepigraphs, and then say that I need to give a reasoned rebuttal for disagreeing with your unreasoned assertion.   That's a double standard.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook