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

[Logicman]

The "left wing loon website" quoted academics who teach at respected universities, which includes two seminaries.

You'd be light years ahead of where you are now if you didn't bury yourself in left-wing theology. The early church fathers were virtually unanimous that the traditional authors wrote their Gospels.

Conservative scholars eat your liberal pundits alive.

 

[Logicman]

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.

There's a hundred times more who disagree with your sophomoric, anti-Christianity nonsense.

 

[RAMOSS]

There's a hundred times more who disagree with your sophomoric, anti-Christianity nonsense.

The funny thing is that the sources I got are religious Christian scholars, who will good translations, in context, and with actual knowledge.
That is at odds with 'tetonics.org', or 'leaderu', or 'bible and science', or 'christian think tank' or that insane blog you use.

 

[Logicman]

The funny thing is that the sources I got are religious Christian scholars, who will good translations, in context, and with actual knowledge.

Nonsense. If those yahoos think the gospel authors are anonymous then they're idiots.

 

[Logicman]

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

By the way that blog of yours tries to paint Hitler as a Christian and that conservative Christian pastors are strong supporters of slavery.

That's blog is full of hatred towards conservative Christianity. It's a hate-filled, left wing pile of manure.

Then there's their moronic article titled "BELIEF IN AN AFTERLIFE DID NOT EMERGE UNTIL NEARLY THE END OF THE WRITING OF THE HEBREW BIBLE"

That's even more nonsense. David himself said he would "dwell in the House of the Lord forever" (23rd Psalm).

"Jesus refers to it (the afterlife) in the affectionate terms of “Abraham’s bosom” in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). When Samuel’s spirit is conjured up in 1 Samuel 28:14-15, Samuel describes himself as being awakened from his "rest." Jesus calls this pre-Christian holding place “Paradise” when he tells the good thief that he will be there with Jesus that day (Luke 23:43)." https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-afterlife-of-the-old-testament-just-souls

And there's even more than that in the OT.

So once again, your blog is the product of left-wing idiots with an anti-Christianity agenda.

 

[RAMOSS]

Nonsense. If those yahoos think the gospel authors are anonymous then they're idiots.

The argument from assertion is not very convincing. I certainly don't accept the 'because I said so' argument.

 

[Somerville]

IMHO, I wouldn't die on the hill of Jesus Mythicism, or even entertain its ideas, if I were you.

If you don't, or can't "entertain" ideas that you find upsetting, it will be difficult to ever determine the truth about any subject. One must examine ideas in a non-biased manner to determine their validity. You cannot start an analysis by saying you already know the answer to what the examination will find.

 

[Omega Man]

What would be your thinking and plan of action were you to find out the New Testament, the resurrection, the original gospel authors being Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, that Jesus is indeed God; that Hell exists for unbelievers, that all that was real and true?

If you find out it's all real are you going to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior for the remission of your sins, or are you going to continue kicking him to the curb and choose Hell?

I've already lived thru all that experience. If God does indeed exist, that isn't it.


OM

 

[Sampson Simpson]

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.

They are not eyewitness testimony, they are stories written down after the fact based on stories told to these people.

 

[Somerville]

They are not eyewitness testimony, they are stories written down after the fact based on stories told to these people.

I, and the majority of those 'librul' academic types who have studied the subject agree that they are not eyewitness reports but . . . do you think their moral teachings are worth following?

I started another thread about the anonymity of the authors, just to try and keep this thread on the topic: discussion of the moral value of the texts.

 

[HumblePi]

Both Old and New Testaments have been written, translated and written again dozens of times by scores of different people spanning hundreds of years.

Remember as kids you may have played the game where you 'send a message' - The first person whispers something in the ear of the person next to them, that one whispers the same thing to the one next to them and so on until it reaches the last person and they repeat what they heard and it's completely different from the original story. That's how I think of the Bible. From the 6th Century B.C. to modern days, there's been a lot of different translations. Much of the Old Testament was created to control people's behaviors and to 'obey' those in power or social status.

I choose to view the Bible as if it were kernels of corn. Those kernels are what I refer to as the basic 'truths'. The rest is what has grown from those kernels, a large field with rows and rows of corn stalks heavy with ears of corn.

 

[devildavid]

I, and the majority of those 'librul' academic types who have studied the subject agree that they are not eyewitness reports but . . . do you think their moral teachings are worth following?

I started another thread about the anonymity of the authors, just to try and keep this thread on the topic: discussion of the moral value of the texts.

This topic is not easy to pin down. There is no commonly held view of what the moral teachings of the bible truly are.

 

[jmotivator]

The moral weight of the gospels has been tried and tested and proven to work for the betterment of man...I can speak from my own personal experience...it works for a much happier and peaceful life...imo nothing compares...

Yeah, when it comes to this discussion I like to refer to the bible as an ownership manual for your soul.

 

[Daisy]

Yeah, when it comes to this discussion I like to refer to the bible as an ownership manual for your soul.

True...others "creations" come with a manual...why shouldn't we? Who better knows us than our Creator? I might add, when i go against that manual, is when I get myself into trouble...every time...

 

[jmotivator]

True...others "creations" come with a manual...why shouldn't we? Who better knows us than our Creator? I might add, when i go against that manual, is when I get myself into trouble...every time...

Indeed. So much of the modern world is pulling us away from that manual... and then selling us on handy fixes for the consequences, which promote a further drift, and more consequences.

 

[zyzygy]

Yeah, when it comes to this discussion I like to refer to the bible as an ownership manual for your soul.

Souls might be imaginary.

 

[jmotivator]

Souls might be imaginary.

Solipsism theorizes that the world is purely imaginary and that the only truth is our own mind. Whether or not that is true, I still get my car's oil changed on schedule, as per the manual.

 

[Daisy]

Souls might be imaginary.

Nope, it is real...you are real, aren't you?

Soul
The traditional rendering of the Hebrew word neʹphesh and the Greek word psy·kheʹ. In examining the way these terms are used in the Bible, it becomes evident that they basically refer to (1) people, (2) animals, or (3) the life that a person or an animal has. (Ge 1:20; 2:7; Nu 31:28; 1Pe 3:20; also ftns.) In contrast to the way that the term “soul” is used in many religious contexts, the Bible shows that both neʹphesh and psy·kheʹ, in connection with earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal. In this translation, these original-language words have most often been rendered according to their meaning in each context, using such terms as “life,” “creature,” “person,” “one’s whole being,” or simply as a personal pronoun (for example, “I” for “my soul”).

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=soul&p=sen&r=newest

 

[devildavid]

Solipsism theorizes that the world is purely imaginary and that the only truth is our own mind. Whether or not that is true, I still get my car's oil changed on schedule, as per the manual.

And what maintenance do you have done to your soul?

 

[Sampson Simpson]

They are not eyewitness testimony, they are stories written down after the fact based on stories told to these people.

And to add to this, you are talking about ancient times where people were very ignorant of how the world works and believed in the supernatural, instead of many of hte things we know about the world today thanks to science is not some magic being doing something.

Also, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Human senses are flawed, our brain fills in the gaps in the senses with what it expects to be there, and you can have 10 people witness the same event and they can have different experiences. Even if you wait hours after, it is even worse.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

I, and the majority of those 'librul' academic types who have studied the subject agree that they are not eyewitness reports but . . . do you think their moral teachings are worth following?

I started another thread about the anonymity of the authors, just to try and keep this thread on the topic: discussion of the moral value of the texts.

yeah, except many christians don't follow the morals of the story or Jesus' teachings. They base their "morals" on the old testament, which is full of violence, genocide, murder, a lot of messed up stuff.


There are good moral stories in nursery rhymes and other works of fiction as well. So I guess ultimately there is some good morals in the gospels. To me, they should be common sense, things people should find moral that don't require stories to provide that to them. you can get them from many other stories and sources

 

[jmotivator]

And what maintenance do you have done to your soul?

Regular prayer, charity, penance, reading the bible, and preaching where and when appropriate, and so on.

 

[Fearandloathing]

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.

The bible plays a very small part in my faith.

For two years I monitored a course on various aspects of the bible, mostly on ancient customs of the day and context, primarily in the New Testament. Much of what we are taught today is pure fluff, canned sermons on the same old stuff.

But there was never a Noah, or a Whale, the whole story is metaphor, for instance the "three days" inside the whale has an obvious meaning to it. It is a story from the lost years where culture was on word of mouth at campfires as they wandered (for 40 years) in the desert. The story is about what its like when we refuse God and his purpose.

Right wing Americans teach much of it wrong. Women can so be preachers and apostles, as Jesus "ordained" the woman at the well to "..go and tell them (her people) I have come."

So no, for the Bible is a reference library of many books by various observers and NOT ALL were eyewitnesses. Paul for example, who preaches his OWN brand of Christianity never met Jesus, and when Jesus was with us old Pauly was torturing Christians for fun and profit

 

[devildavid]

Regular prayer, charity, penance, reading the bible, and preaching where and when appropriate, and so on.

Some of these activities can and are done by non Christians and even by non religious. Does it do the same for any soul regardless? How about reading other religious texts or praying to other gods?

 

[jmotivator]

Some of these activities can and are done by non Christians and even by non religious. Does it do the same for any soul regardless? How about reading other religious texts or praying to other gods?

Indeed they can, where did I say they can't?

A vaccine works on someone whether or not they believe they will, too.