Were the gospel writers present during the time of Jesus?

[Quaestio]

Horse manure.

Yes, that's what I would call the Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell pop-apologist-pap you rely on.

 

[Rich2018]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJMd5UiTeys


We can all post You Tube links.

 

[Logicman]

Yes, that's what I would call the Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell pop-apologist-pap you rely on.

I recommend you actually do some homework on Biblical theology some day so you can run with the big dogs. Right now you're not even close to comprehending Biblical truths.

 

[Logicman]

We don't even know who wrote the gospels

You don't know. Because you haven't done your homework. You just parrot the latest nonsense from the anti-Christ crowd.

 

[Quaestio]

I recommend you actually do some homework on Biblical theology some day so you can run with the big dogs. Right now you're not even close to comprehending Biblical truths.

I prefer reading textual criticism works by NT scholars like Metzger and Erhman to the pop-apologist-pap you rely on.

 

[RAMOSS]

You don't know. Because you haven't done your homework. You just parrot the latest nonsense from the anti-Christ crowd.

Well, that's better than parroting the theology of the pop up apologist.

 

[Quaestio]

You don't know. Because you haven't done your homework. You just parrot the latest nonsense from the anti-Christ crowd.

Spong!

 

[Logicman]

I prefer reading textual criticism works by NT scholars like Metzger and Erhman to the pop-apologist-pap you rely on.

"...the four gospels in the New Testament were readily accepted with remarkable unanimity as being authentic in the story they told." - Bruce Metzger - The Case for Christ, pg. 71

"I have studied this (the minutiae of the New Testament texts) thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed." - Metzger, ibid, pg. 75

How's do you like Metzger now??

 

[Logicman]

Well, that's better than parroting the theology of the pop up apologist.

You continue to show how shallow and unscholarly your understanding of the New Testament is.

 

[RAMOSS]

You continue to show how shallow and unscholarly your understanding of the New Testament is.

Considering the evidence (Or lack there of) that you continue to show, that is a very difficult statement for you to prove.

 

[Quaestio]

"...the four gospels in the New Testament were readily accepted with remarkable unanimity as being authentic in the story they told." - Bruce Metzger - The Case for Christ, pg. 71

"I have studied this (the minutiae of the New Testament texts) thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed." - Metzger, ibid, pg. 75

How's do you like Metzger now??

LOL! You've only ever read quotes from Lee Strobel's brief interview with him (not long before he died) in his pop-apologist book "Case for Christ", not any of Metzger's academic works - Including the last textbook he wrote with Bart Erhman.

The Text of the New Testament -Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
Fourth Edition

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-text-of-the-new-testament-9780195161229?cc=us&lang=en&

 

[Quaestio]

"...the four gospels in the New Testament were readily accepted with remarkable unanimity as being authentic in the story they told." - Bruce Metzger - The Case for Christ, pg. 71

"I have studied this (the minutiae of the New Testament texts) thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed." - Metzger, ibid, pg. 75

How's do you like Metzger now??

From: The Text of the New Testament -Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Fourth Edition - Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman


"The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alteration: those that involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient and those that introduce into the Scriptures "proof for a favorite theological tenet or practice." - pg 266

"It is a striking feature of our textual record that the earliest copies we have of the various books that became the New Testament vary from one another far more widely than do the later copies, which were made under more controlled circumstances in the Middle Ages" pg 275

How do you like Metzger now?

 

[PleasantValley]

Yet another, " I hate your religion " thread.
...and then spend page after page trying to justify their hate upon other people who do not believe the same way they do.

Kinda just like the reason they say they hate religion.
Attempting to force beliefs on other people.
Yet they do it daily.

They would be at home in any period of persecution, because that is what they are doing now and that is what they want.

All religions are bad, but especially Christianity.

Now all bow to the alter of ATHEISM.
It is their religion and they want to force it on everyone else.

 

[Quaestio]

Yet another, " I hate your religion " thread.
...and then spend page after page trying to justify their hate upon other people who do not believe the same way they do.

Kinda just like the reason they say they hate religion.
Attempting to force beliefs on other people.
Yet they do it daily.

They would be at home in any period of persecution, because that is what they are doing now and that is what they want.

All religions are bad, but especially Christianity.

Now all bow to the alter of ATHEISM.
It is their religion and they want to force it on everyone else.

This thread was started by a Christian.

Right now, I count at least 9 "I hate atheists" type threads started in this sub-forum. I'm sure you'll enjoy yourself posting in those.

 

[PleasantValley]

This thread was started by a Christian.

Right now, I count at least 9 "I hate atheists" type threads started in this sub-forum. I'm sure you'll enjoy yourself posting in those.

I don't impose my will on anyone's beliefs.
They are theirs and mine are mine.

 

[Quaestio]

I don't impose my will on anyone's beliefs.
They are theirs and mine are mine.

Uh huh.

Yet another, " I hate your religion " thread.
...and then spend page after page trying to justify their hate upon other people who do not believe the same way they do.

Kinda just like the reason they say they hate religion.
Attempting to force beliefs on other people.
Yet they do it daily.

They would be at home in any period of persecution, because that is what they are doing now and that is what they want.

All religions are bad, but especially Christianity.

Now all bow to the alter of ATHEISM.
It is their religion and they want to force it on everyone else.

View attachment 67247886

 

[PleasantValley]

Uh huh.

If you actually read those posts you quoted, you would see I am consistent in my belief no one should force another to believe in a way they do not want to.
Yet ATHEIST try and force people to believe their way all the time.
I can see reading interpretation is not your strong point.
You just made mine.

 

[Quaestio]

If you actually read those posts you quoted, you would see I am consistent in my belief no one should force another to believe in a way they do not want to.
Yet ATHEIST try and force people to believe their way all the time.
I can see reading interpretation is not your strong point.
You just made mine.

View attachment 67247889

Uh huh. Keep going....

 

[RAMOSS]

If you actually read those posts you quoted, you would see I am consistent in my belief no one should force another to believe in a way they do not want to.
Yet ATHEIST try and force people to believe their way all the time.
I can see reading interpretation is not your strong point.
You just made mine.

View attachment 67247889

Ponit one. Most liberals are Christians. Point 2. I never had an atheist come to my door trying to convert me to atheism. SO, this is a false claim, to the point of being a lie.

 

[marke]

Interesting that this Christian says we can throw out the gospels if we can show that the people who wrote them weren't even alive at the time of the Crucifixion.


We know the gospels were written after the Crucifixion - possibly as much as 100 years later. So yes they writers could have been alive but more likely they were not.


We don't know who the writers of the gospels were. We don't know their names or where they lived or where they were from.
This guy says he wouldn't trust evidence from someone who was born after an event
Would he trust written evidence from an anonymous writer ?


The gospels contradict each other


The gospels are written in the third person. None starts any sentence with the word "I..."


We don't know if the contents of the gospels is their entire original content. They could have been edited.


Here's what Wiki has:

"The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses. Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek..."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels


If these estimates are correct, it's unlikely that any of the writers could have even been present at the time of the Crucifixion....and quite possibly not even been alive at that time. And as this former policemen says, we should "chuck them out".

God inspired the writing of the Bible. Unbelievers get themselves in trouble with God for challenging that fact.

 

[Somerville]

Not on topic but ...

If you actually read those posts you quoted, you would see I am consistent in my belief no one should force another to believe in a way they do not want to.
Yet ATHEIST try and force people to believe their way all the time.
I can see reading interpretation is not your strong point.
You just made mine.

View attachment 67247889

It is always to be seen as a positive when a person one often finds in opposition actually says a few words which are found noteworthy and positive. This applies to the first sentence by PleasantValley.

The remainder of their comment is not so positive.

Supreme Court approves Prayers for City Councils

The Supreme Court said Monday that city councils and other public boards are free to open their meetings with an explicitly Christian prayer, ruling that judges may not act as "censors of religious speech" simply because the prayers reflect the views of the dominant faith.
The 5-4 decision rejected the idea that government-sponsored prayers violate the Constitution if officials regularly invite Christian clerics to offer the prayers.

The Conservative Crusade For Christian Sharia Law

It’s not just the fringe anymore. Mainstream conservatives are trying to bring America’s laws into agreement with ‘God’s law.’

The question isn’t: Will conservatives push to enact laws based on the Bible? We are way beyond that. The real questions are: 1. How many more of these laws do they want to impose? And, 2. What will our nation look like if their crusade is successful to bring America’s laws into agreement with “God’s law”?
To some on the right, America is a “Christian nation”—like Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation—meaning that our nation’s laws should be based on their religious text. These forces aren’t moved by Thomas Jefferson’s*famous letter*in which he spoke of the need to create, "a wall of separation between church and state.” Nor will they be swayed by citing Ronald Reagan’s*words, "Church and state are, and must remain, separate.”

Religious law may be coming to America. But it’s not sharia; it’s Christian.

Much-dreaded “sharia law,” or something resembling it, may well be coming to the United States.
Just not in the form many Americans expected.

That is, the religiously motivated laws creeping into public policymaking aren’t based on the Koran, and they aren’t coming from*mythical hard-line Islamists*in, say, Dearborn, Mich. They’re coming from the White House, which wants to make it easier for hard-line Christians to impose their beliefs and practices on the rest of us.

A few days after declaring his intention to impose a religious test upon refugees so that Christians would be given*priority,*President Trump gave a*bizarre speech*at the National Prayer Breakfast. In between a plug for “The Apprentice” and boasts about his disastrous calls with heads of allied states, he made some less-noticed policy news.

He vowed to help blur the line between church and state by*repealing the Johnson Amendment.

For those who aren't familiar with the Johnson Amendment, it is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Churches are 501(c)(3) organisations. It is named for Lyndon B Johnson (D-TX) who pushed it thru Congress in 1954.

Apparently, there are enough Republicans in Congress who understand the implications of repealing the Johnson Amendment, that it was not supported in the 2018 budget.

Johnson Amendment remains intact in latest omnibus spending bill
Mar 22, 2018

WASHINGTON —*The part of tax law that prohibits houses of worship from engaging in explicit political activity will remain intact for now, despite concerns that Republican lawmakers would try to repeal it in the latest massive federal spending bill they released this week.
The more than 60-year-old law, often referred to as the Johnson Amendment, bars churches and other tax-exempt organizations from endorsing political candidates. A group of conservatives — mostly evangelical Christian leaders and a few Republican lawmakers — have advocated for its removal in recent years, and a 2017 bill from the House Appropriations Committee included a provision largely defunding IRS efforts to enforce it.

 

[Daisy]

This thread was started by a Christian.

Right now, I count at least 9 "I hate atheists" type threads started in this sub-forum. I'm sure you'll enjoy yourself posting in those.

That was not my intention of starting this thread...I believe it to give sound evidence for the gospels being genuine...of course others don't and that's ok...Jesus made the point that not everyone would believe...at least the info is out there for those who are interested...

 

[Quaestio]

That was not my intention of starting this thread...I believe it to give sound evidence for the gospels being genuine...of course others don't and that's ok...Jesus made the point that not everyone would believe...at least the info is out there for those who are interested...

Yes, I know you don't start "I hate atheists" type threads. Others clearly do.

 

[Logicman]

LOL! You've only ever read quotes from Lee Strobel's brief interview with him (not long before he died) in his pop-apologist book "Case for Christ", not any of Metzger's academic works - Including the last textbook he wrote with Bart Erhman.

Bull.

But you apparently have no answer for how strongly Metzger values the New Testament documents

"...the four gospels in the New Testament were readily accepted with remarkable unanimity as being authentic in the story they told." - Bruce Metzger - The Case for Christ, pg. 71

"I have studied this (the minutiae of the New Testament texts) thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed." - Metzger, ibid, pg. 75

How's do you like Metzger now??

 

[Somerville]

Among those academic types who aren't required to sign 'doctrinal statements' to keep their positions, the majority opinion about the Gospels may be found in the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) on pg. 1744:

Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.​

I have the 4th edition of the book