• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IF the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, would you . . . ?

If the Gospels that we have today were not written by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses, would you change your beliefs as to the moral value of the stories told in the texts?

This is not an attack on beliefs about the authors; instead, it is meant to bring out the ways in which we view the teachings.

IF the Gospels were written 50 to 100 years after the time of the resurrection, by people who had no personal relationship with the earliest believers in Jesus, would you believe they have less value in teaching us how to live moral lives?

Please don't argue about when and by whom the books were written. This is just about the words we can read today.

You make two big "IF" propositions.

Before your request for answers is provided, show me why I should even entertain your anti-Christianity supposition that the Gospels that we have today were not written by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses? Where's your proof??
 
I don't find your argument by assertion convincing. The use of out of context quotes, and lists also don't make a convincing argument.

You and Somerville have ZERO PROOF that the Gospels that we have today were NJOT written by eyewitnesses or close associates of Jesus. Where's your proof, Ramoss?

I don't know why people even entertain your follies.
 
You make two big "IF" propositions.

Before your request for answers is provided, show me why I should even entertain your anti-Christianity supposition that the Gospels that we have today were not written by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses? Where's your proof??

You obviously have a reading problem, so I will make the words bigger

Please don't argue about when and by whom the books were written. This is just about the words we can read today.

Either you start a new thread or I will but this thread is just about the moral teachings of the Gospels and not by whom they were written.
 
You make two big "IF" propositions.

Before your request for answers is provided, show me why I should even entertain your anti-Christianity supposition that the Gospels that we have today were not written by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses? Where's your proof??

Nothing about that post was 'anti-Christian'. Otherwise, you could point it out. And you can't. And that's both pathetic and fun! And there's no credible evidence that they were written by contemporaries. Yay! History! Why do you refuse to accept the meaning of the word, 'truth'?

Pretending to be a Christian is such a sad state of affairs.
 
You and Somerville have ZERO PROOF that the Gospels that we have today were NJOT written by eyewitnesses or close associates of Jesus. Where's your proof, Ramoss?

I don't know why people even entertain your follies.

Why, proof is only in mathematics and alcohol. However, mainstream CHRISTIAN theologians say that the 4 Gospels are anonymous. The fact your refuse to acknowledge that the sources that make that claim are Christians theologians is sad.
 
Why, proof is only in mathematics and alcohol. However, mainstream CHRISTIAN theologians say that the 4 Gospels are autonomous. The fact your refuse to acknowledge that the sources that make that claim are Christians theologians is sad.

anonymous not "autonomous". I know, it's late and we all make typos. Have a good evening Ramoss, I do respect your take on the Bible, both Old and New.
 
anonymous not "autonomous". I know, it's late and we all make typos. Have a good evening Ramoss, I do respect your take on the Bible, both Old and New.

Autocorrect struck, and I corrected it already.
 
This is just about the words we can read today.[/B][/SIZE]

.

I love the words we read today. "He is risen"!! And from Revelation, Jesus is the "alpha and omega"!!

Praise the Lord!
 
If the Gospels that we have today were not written by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses, would you change your beliefs as to the moral value of the stories told in the texts?

This is not an attack on beliefs about the authors; instead, it is meant to bring out the ways in which we view the teachings.

IF the Gospels were written 50 to 100 years after the time of the resurrection, by people who had no personal relationship with the earliest believers in Jesus, would you believe they have less value in teaching us how to live moral lives?

Please don't argue about when and by whom the books were written. This is just about the words we can read today.

I wouldn't believe that horse**** even if Jesus's brother wrote the ****ers. I am amazed that any adults actually do.
 
I love the words we read today. "He is risen"!! And from Revelation, Jesus is the "alpha and omega"!!

Praise the Lord!

Yes, you do like those words, they are quite the mantra for you. Repetition does not make it true though, and it does make him sound like the Pillsbury dough boy.
 
Why, proof is only in mathematics and alcohol. However, mainstream CHRISTIAN theologians say that the 4 Gospels are anonymous. The fact your refuse to acknowledge that the sources that make that claim are Christians theologians is sad.
Where do you get this horse manure? It's absolute NONSENSE.

Perhaps Ramoss gets his "horse manure" from sources other than fundie websites, sources which have actual education in the matter

MOST BIBLICAL SCHOLARS SAY THE GOSPELS ARE ANONYMOUS DOCUMENTS BY UNKNOWN AUTHORS
“All four of the canonical gospels were originally anonymous. It was only in the second century CE, when the four gospels were published a a collection that the superscriptions were added to the gospels, attributing authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively. This is also the time that traditions begin to appear about the authors, claiming that they were either original apostles of Jesus or close acquaintances of other well-known apostles. in spite of these attributions, most scholars do not think any of these men were the original gospel writers. None of the gospels is written in a style that suggests the authors was present at the events being narrated. Nor is it likely that the disciples of Jesus were able to write in Greek, the language in which the gospels were written. So we are left with the reality that the gospels were written by anonymous Christians decades after the events that they relate.”
Dr. David M. Carr (Union Theological Seminary) & Dr Colleen M. Conway (Seton Hall University)

"The four Gospels were written anonymously between A.D. 70 and 100, and assembled into a collection about A.D. 125. The authors did not provide them with titles, others added them later.”
Dr. David E. Aune (University of Notre Dame)

“Formally speaking, all four canonical Gospels are anonymous since their authors names are not mentioned anywhere within the context of the verses themselves… The superscript of each of the four Gospels is not an original part of the document.. it was likely later appended to the scroll for identification.” (4)
Dr. Ben Witherington (Asbury Theological Seminary)
 
Where do you get this horse manure? It's absolute NONSENSE.

I got it using in sources in context that give references, and an indept analysis. I am sure that , after such sights as 'teutonics', 'leadershipu', and an insane blog, that might come as a foreign concept to you.
 
Perhaps Ramoss gets his "horse manure" from sources other than fundie websites, sources which have actual education in the matter

MOST BIBLICAL SCHOLARS SAY THE GOSPELS ARE ANONYMOUS DOCUMENTS BY UNKNOWN AUTHORS

I notice, although that is just a blog , that when it gives references, it give a quote, and their actual teaching position. I don't know about union theolgoical seminary, but Seton Hall, , the Univeristy of Notre Dame, and AsburyTheological Seminary are well established and have a good reputation. Unlike places like the Dallas Theological Seminary.
 
I notice, although that is just a blog , that when it gives references, it give a quote, and their actual teaching position. I don't know about union theolgoical seminary, but Seton Hall, , the Univeristy of Notre Dame, and AsburyTheological Seminary are well established and have a good reputation. Unlike places like the Dallas Theological Seminary.

My point exactly - references with quotes from respected sources. Unlike what we see from some who comment here.
 
Where do you get this horse manure? It's absolute NONSENSE.

It's all nonsense. Debating the origins of the bible is like arguing over the origins of Grimm's Fables. Who cares where they came from, we all know the stories in the books are bull****?

Well...maybe not all of us know. :roll:
 
It's all nonsense. Debating the origins of the bible is like arguing over the origins of Grimm's Fables. Who cares where they came from, we all know the stories in the books are bull****?

Well...maybe not all of us know. :roll:

Aw, c'mon calamity, there are some good stories in there, along with the bull manure. How one decides between manure and edible grain is the problem.
 
Last edited:


According to Professor Richard Bauckham, the people who saw and heard Jesus were still alive, and still telling their stories, when the Bible's accounts of Jesus were written. The Gospel accounts are based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. From the series 'Jesus Myths,' exploring modern myths about Jesus. With Professor Richard Bauckham, University of St. Andrews, author 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.'



According to Professor Richard Bauckham, the Bible's accounts of Jesus are based on the testimony of eyewitnesses -- they were biographies based on living memory. One way they show this is how they use names. The official witnesses to the life of Jesus had to be people who were with him from the beginning of his ministry, such as Simon Peter. Peter's testimony stands behind the Gospel of Mark. From the series 'Jesus Myths,' exploring modern myths about Jesus. With Professor Richard Bauckham, University of St. Andrews, author 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.'
 
No, you get your spittle from left wing loon websites.
The "left wing loon website" quoted academics who teach at respected universities, which includes two seminaries.

And what did you write in bold in Post #53?

Please don't argue about when and by whom the books were written. This is just about the words we can read today.

In response to your posts #51 & 52 AFTER I had asked that we focus on the topic. Politely asking if you would start another thread focused on the scholarship around the authorship of the Gospels, which might also include what we know about the time of their composition.
 


Take a closer look at the fascinating process of biblical research that helps reveal the foundations and credibility of the timeless wisdom of the Bible. Dr. Peter Williams, biblical scholar and researcher, uncovers results that point to the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Gain a deeper understanding of what is revealed in the ancient manuscripts, what Jesus' life and words say about the Bible, and what history reveals about the accuracy of the biblical text.
 


Well, someone who believes sees reasons to convince themselves they are right. He makes assumptions about things that can not be shown to be true. I will point out many Christian biblical scholars disagree with a number of both his assumptions and his conclusions about the dates of the Gospels.
 


The passages from Josephus that are used by the apologists have been either totally inserted, or modified. So using Josephus as evidence is using forgeries.
 
The passages from Josephus that are used by the apologists have been either totally inserted, or modified. So using Josephus as evidence is using forgeries.
IMHO, I wouldn't die on the hill of Jesus Mythicism, or even entertain its ideas, if I were you.
 
IMHO, I wouldn't die on the hill of Jesus Mythicism, or even entertain its ideas, if I were you.

I am not saying if Jesus did or didn't exist from a historical perspective. I am just saying that the evidence that is given out is very often forgeries or tampered with... or is misrepresented. One question I always wondered is 'how far from the Jesus in the Bible has a Jesus has to be to no longer be considered the historical Jesus.

You can't prove a historical Jesus did not exist, based on the weak, distorted evidence of Jesus existing, but you can say that the evidence for Jesus from outside the bible is found wanting.
 
Back
Top Bottom