• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Were the Gospels eye-witness testemonies?

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Some think that the actual apostles did indeed write these, despite the fact that they mention the fall of Jerusalem, 72 A.D. though they date it earlier make it appear as if it is prothetic.

Anyways after looking around it appears the earliest of the gospels was written around 60 A.D. So the apostles would have had to been what 80, 90? It seems nobody has a damn clue who wrote the gospels.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well, the short answer is no. An eye-witness testimony would include only a testimony of what the eye-witness had actually witnessed with their own eyes.

By contrast Matthew doesn't appear in his own Gospel until the ninth chapter:

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. -Matthew 9:9
Accordingly he can't actually be an eye-witness for any of the preceding chapters.
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
They certainly weren't eye witness given at minimum the earliest may have been written in 60 AD. In fact there is no scholarly consensus on the dates and 60 AD is probably early. In essence the range in between 60 AD and the second half of the second century AD (so around 150 AD). At least three are post-70 AD because of the fall of Jerusalem references and come quite possibly decades afterwards. There really is no way to tell. Certainly they were not written by the apostles, one can even doubt whether some of these men could even write. Indeed, the Gospel of Mark (thought to be the earliest) even contains errors about Galilean geography and customs suggesting that the writer wasn't even from Galilee. At best these are certainly second hand accounts and possibly even third or fourth hand accounts.
 

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
They certainly weren't eye witness given at minimum the earliest may have been written in 60 AD. In fact there is no scholarly consensus on the dates and 60 AD is probably early. In essence the range in between 60 AD and the second half of the second century AD (so around 150 AD). At least three are post-70 AD because of the fall of Jerusalem references and come quite possibly decades afterwards. There really is no way to tell. Certainly they were not written by the apostles, one can even doubt whether some of these men could even write. Indeed, the Gospel of Mark (thought to be the earliest) even contains errors about Galilean geography and customs suggesting that the writer wasn't even from Galilee. At best these are certainly second hand accounts and possibly even third or fourth hand accounts.
That's what I thought, just got in a discussion with someone who was pretty certain that the Gospels were written by the disciples. I thought most people relaized they weren't.
 

Hawkins

Active member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
274
Reaction score
38
Location
Hong Kong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Some think that the actual apostles did indeed write these, despite the fact that they mention the fall of Jerusalem, 72 A.D. though they date it earlier make it appear as if it is prothetic.

Anyways after looking around it appears the earliest of the gospels was written around 60 A.D. So the apostles would have had to been what 80, 90? It seems nobody has a damn clue who wrote the gospels.
It is a mixture of things, including valid testimony and witnessing. "Valid" here refers to the validity defined by God and may find its application in the court of heaven.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Some think that the actual apostles did indeed write these, despite the fact that they mention the fall of Jerusalem, 72 A.D. though they date it earlier make it appear as if it is prothetic.
hm. first problem; you have no evidence that they are discussing the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. that's simply an anti-theistic bias masquerading as fact; the notion that because a prediction has 'come true' it must have been added in by a redactor.

second problem: Jesus prediction about the Temple isn't, technically, completely accurate. there are, after all, stones left standing on each other - the infamous wailing wall. so i would like to see your reasoning for why the authors of the New Testament would be willing to lie about Jesus words, but unwilling to make Him appear accurate?

Anyways after looking around it appears the earliest of the gospels was written around 60 A.D. So the apostles would have had to been what 80, 90? It seems nobody has a damn clue who wrote the gospels.
actually we know quite a bit about the early Gospels. Mark was the recorded teachings of Peter, John appears to have been dictated by the apostle to his disciples, and Matthew appears to have been written by the apostle himself. Luke begins his text by stating that he is not an eyewitness, but records the multiple eyewitness and written accounts that he used as source material.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It is a mixture of things, including valid testimony and witnessing. "Valid" here refers to the validity defined by God and may find its application in the court of heaven.
That's meaningless, it's like saying "validity defined by unicorns and magical pixies". Since there's no reason whatsoever to think that God is real, any validity based on it is fanciful at best.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's meaningless, it's like saying "validity defined by unicorns and magical pixies". Since there's no reason whatsoever to think that God is real, any validity based on it is fanciful at best.
:) beg the question much?
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
:) beg the question much?
It's not begging the question, it's reality. There is no way you can start with nothing and end up with a belief in a god, examining only the evidence and following solely where it leads. It takes a whole lot of wishful thinking to get anywhere near god(s), you cannot get there rationally.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's not begging the question, it's reality. There is no way you can start with nothing and end up with a belief in a god, examining only the evidence and following solely where it leads. It takes a whole lot of wishful thinking to get anywhere near god(s), you cannot get there rationally.
who says i have to start with nothing? no examination is started with nothing.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
who says i have to start with nothing? no examination is started with nothing.
You're demanding that the opposition start with nothing. If you get to invent a magical exception for God, then you cannot deny all exceptions for everyone else.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're demanding that the opposition start with nothing. If you get to invent a magical exception for God, then you cannot deny all exceptions for everyone else.
i fail to see what is 'magic' about pointing out that the claim that "there is no logical reason to believe in God" is begging the question. at best it's circular logic.
 
Last edited:

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
i fail to see what is 'magic' about pointing out that the claim that "there is no logical reason to believe in God" is begging the question. at best it's circular logic.
No, it's a clear and concise statement. There is no logical reason to believe in God. If you think I'm wrong, present a logical reason to do so. Shouldn't be too difficult, should it?
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
hm. first problem; you have no evidence that they are discussing the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. that's simply an anti-theistic bias masquerading as fact; the notion that because a prediction has 'come true' it must have been added in by a redactor.

second problem: Jesus prediction about the Temple isn't, technically, completely accurate. there are, after all, stones left standing on each other - the infamous wailing wall. so i would like to see your reasoning for why the authors of the New Testament would be willing to lie about Jesus words, but unwilling to make Him appear accurate?
The majority of biblical scholars would disagree with you.


actually we know quite a bit about the early Gospels. Mark was the recorded teachings of Peter, John appears to have been dictated by the apostle to his disciples, and Matthew appears to have been written by the apostle himself. Luke begins his text by stating that he is not an eyewitness, but records the multiple eyewitness and written accounts that he used as source material.
Sources??
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
i fail to see what is 'magic' about pointing out that the claim that "there is no logical reason to believe in God" is begging the question. at best it's circular logic.
I'm not a faith-having person. Never was. I always questioned the Bible - every bit of it - I just never believed it.

But at the same time I see no evidence *against* God existing. . . it's just as solid as evidence *for* God existing. . . when we're talking about science (not debatable issues of historical/religious accuracy such as: were the walls of Jericho really toppled? Did the Red Sea part?)

So I think trying to debate whether God might exist or not is interesting - but moot.
if you think he exists then there you go.
If you don't then there you go.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
But at the same time I see no evidence *against* God existing. . . it's just as solid as evidence *for* God existing. . . when we're talking about science (not debatable issues of historical/religious accuracy such as: were the walls of Jericho really toppled? Did the Red Sea part?)
There's no evidence against unicorns existing either, but we don't consider belief in them to be valid or rational. You don't get to pick something out of a hat to demand is real, just because it makes you feel better. For the same reason I reject belief in unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, alien abductions, etc., I reject belief in God. I may change my mind on any of them once actual, objective evidence to support their factual existence is presented, but until then... forget it.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
There's no evidence against unicorns existing either, but we don't consider belief in them to be valid or rational. You don't get to pick something out of a hat to demand is real, just because it makes you feel better. For the same reason I reject belief in unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, alien abductions, etc., I reject belief in God. I may change my mind on any of them once actual, objective evidence to support their factual existence is presented, but until then... forget it.
There's actually more evidence supporting Big foot and Loch Ness than Jesus-son-of-God or even God for that matter.

My basic view: if God exists we sure as heck don't understand him at all - and he's likely not the God we embody in our holy-books.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, it's a clear and concise statement. There is no logical reason to believe in God. If you think I'm wrong, present a logical reason to do so. Shouldn't be too difficult, should it?
:shrug: well that could certainly come later, but let's examine your statement.

"there is no logical reason to believe in God"

what this does is preset the terms of the debate in order to place the result in the assumptions of the question.

so, for example, if i were to say that there is no credible evidence to suggest that man landed on the moon, and then reply that any evidence you demonstrated didn't count because it "wasn't credible" because (again) no credible evidence existed that man landed on the moon, then what i am engaging in is called a circular argument.

or, begging the question.

your declaration that there is no logical evidence for God is simply a declaration that any evidence presented you will refuse to acknowledge as logical, or else you are stating that you have the capability to prove a negative, which comes with it's own set of difficulties.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm not a faith-having person. Never was. I always questioned the Bible - every bit of it - I just never believed it.

But at the same time I see no evidence *against* God existing. . . it's just as solid as evidence *for* God existing. . . when we're talking about science (not debatable issues of historical/religious accuracy such as: were the walls of Jericho really toppled? Did the Red Sea part?)

So I think trying to debate whether God might exist or not is interesting - but moot.
if you think he exists then there you go.
If you don't then there you go.
well. you tell me. have you ever been to the island of malta?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
well. you tell me. have you ever been to the island of malta?
I've had unbelievably intense orgasms, too - but I still don't realy *believe* in the religous-God (any religious God, there are many versions).

I've also been near-death several times, no God there, either.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There's actually more evidence supporting Big foot and Loch Ness than Jesus-son-of-God or even God for that matter.
Granted. At least we have lots of sightings for Bigfoot and the LNM. God doesn't leave footprints.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
so, for example, if i were to say that there is no credible evidence to suggest that man landed on the moon, and then reply that any evidence you demonstrated didn't count because it "wasn't credible" because (again) no credible evidence existed that man landed on the moon, then what i am engaging in is called a circular argument.
No it's not. For the moon landing, we have tons of photos, moon rocks, multiple corroboratory eyewitness accounts, we left laser reflectors on the moon that we can bounce lasers off of and prove conclusively that we've been there. None of it rests on faith, all of it can be proven by anyone who wants to look.

Now do that for God.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
well. you tell me. have you ever been to the island of malta?
Can't say I have. However, I can find satellite views of Malta, I can find maps of Malta and, if I wanted to, I can hop on a plane and go to Malta. Just because I don't doesn't mean I can't.

So please tell me something I can do that absolutely proves the existence of God.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've had unbelievably intense orgasms, too - but I still don't realy *believe* in the religous-God (any religious God, there are many versions).

I've also been near-death several times, no God there, either.
well, you didn't really answer the question. have you ever been to the island of Malta?
 
Top Bottom