• 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!

Why Most Scholars Agree on the Anonymity of the Four Gospels

Somerville said:
This thread is meant to pull people away from the other thread I started...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how much good it does to discuss this here.

The reasons to dismiss apostolic authorship of the gospels are numerous, are widely accepted by scholars, and will be rejected by literalists no matter how much evidence is presented.
 
Visbek said:
I'm not sure how much good it does to discuss this here.

The reasons to dismiss apostolic authorship of the gospels are numerous, are widely accepted by scholars, and will be rejected by literalists no matter how much evidence is presented.
Click to expand...

First, I'd like to see the poll which shows "most scholars agree on the anonymity of the four Gospels."

Second, there is considerable evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels here: Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

And third, dedicated Christ-deniers and others who think like them will reject the traditional authors no matter how much evidence is presented.
 
Logicman said:
First, I'd like to see the poll which shows "most scholars agree on the anonymity of the four Gospels."

Second, there is considerable evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels here: Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

And third, dedicated Christ-deniers and others who think like them will reject the traditional authors no matter how much evidence is presented.
Click to expand...

Care to discuss the argument in depth, rather than putting out a random , poorly written essay ?
 
Logicman said:
You're not a fair arbiter of the truth.
Click to expand...

You do seem to have a lot of excuses not to show that you actually can discuss the contents of the links you provide.
 
RAMOSS said:
You do seem to have a lot of excuses not to show that you actually can discuss the contents of the links you provide.
Click to expand...

Go bother somebody else with your anti-Christianity nonsense.
 
Elvira said:
He makes a lotta sense...you should listen to him...
Click to expand...


No he doesn't

He says that no-one should trust the gospels if we can't show they were at least alive at the time of the Crucifixion.

That's a valid point.

He then stretches a point or two to suggest that the content of the gospels means that the writer(s) could have been alive at the time of the Crucifixion.


OK, this is where his logic falls apart...so he's speaking as a former cop. And in this context we have two major flaws:

1. No court would accept evidence on the grounds that it might be true.

2. Most damning is that neither he as a former cop or any court would accept anonymous written statements as evidence.



QED: The gospels cannot be taken as evidence that Jesus ever lived, let alone performed the miracles that his followers claim.
 
Rich2018 said:
No he doesn't

He says that no-one should trust the gospels if we can't show they were at least alive at the time of the Crucifixion.

That's a valid point.

He then stretches a point or two to suggest that the content of the gospels means that the writer(s) could have been alive at the time of the Crucifixion.


OK, this is where his logic falls apart...so he's speaking as a former cop. And in this context we have two major flaws:

1. No court would accept evidence on the grounds that it might be true.

2. Most damning is that neither he as a former cop or any court would accept anonymous written statements as evidence.



QED: The gospels cannot be taken as evidence that Jesus ever lived, let alone performed the miracles that his followers claim.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why he is a successful forensic detective and you're not...:roll:
 
Elvira said:
Yeah, that's why he is a successful forensic detective and you're not...:roll:
Click to expand...

...he's a successful forensic detective because he accepts evidence that might be true...and sworn statements from anonymous sources ?


I somehow doubt he lets his religious views interfere with his police work.

Any court (at least in a Western country like the USA) would laugh out "evidence" based on "might be true" or that was "anonymous" ?


Would you be happy to be convicted of a crime on the basis of an anonymous statement that "might" be true ?
 
Elvira said:
Yeah, that's why he is a successful forensic detective and you're not...:roll:
Click to expand...

Except, the reasoning he is using is not as a 'forensic detective', but as an apologist who is writing a book to believers for profit.
 
J. Warner Wallace is no longer a police detective. His work as a Christian apologist is far more profitable.
 
Somerville said:
J. Warner Wallace is no longer a police detective. His work as a Christian apologist is far more profitable.
Click to expand...

Hopefully he was better as a police detective, because his apologetics outright suck.
 
Rich2018 said:
There's this former homicide cop turned Christian guy on the internet trying to establish forensic proof that Jesus lived and the gospels are true and reliable.

He asks why would you accept a testimony of anyone who wasn't alive at the time of the events they describe - a fair point. Then goes on to try and prove the gospels were indeed alive at the time of the Crucifixion.


But shies away from answering whether, as a former homicide detective, he'd ever accept or present as evidence an unsigned testimony from an anonymous source.



In my view the gosp[els are all forgeries from the early Christian church.
Click to expand...

And the Christian Church was, what, exactly? Why did it come about and why would it suffer for hundreds of years for a lie?
 
phattonez said:
And the Christian Church was, what, exactly? Why did it come about and why would it suffer for hundreds of years for a lie?
Click to expand...

Why did rhe heaven's gate cult commit suicide for a lie?
 
phattonez said:
And the Christian Church was, what, exactly? Why did it come about and why would it suffer for hundreds of years for a lie?
Click to expand...

Because to them it wasn't a lie, but something they strongly believed in. People will suffer for their strong beliefs. But that does not make their beliefs into the truth.
 
RAMOSS said:
Why did rhe heaven's gate cult commit suicide for a lie?
Click to expand...
Only one of them knew it was a lie. I wasn't aware that the cult had any public miracles as evidence of their divinity.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
Somerville said:
Yes, what was the "Christian Church"? How many hundreds of years did it suffer?
Click to expand...
About 300 years until the Edict of Milan.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
devildavid said:
Because to them it wasn't a lie, but something they strongly believed in. People will suffer for their strong beliefs. But that does not make their beliefs into the truth.
Click to expand...
Jesus appeared to the apostles. He appeared to 500 before the ascension. Thousands were baptized on Pentecost. All of these people were persecuted. These were all large, public events. You mean to tell me that thousands chose a life of persecution for something that they knew to be a lie?

No, and you know it. You just don't want to accept it because of the demands that it places on your life. The truth is always better than a lie.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
phattonez said:
Only one of them knew it was a lie. I wasn't aware that the cult had any public miracles as evidence of their divinity.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

Can you show it's any different with Christianity?
 
phattonez said:
Only one of them knew it was a lie. I wasn't aware that the cult had any public miracles as evidence of their divinity.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't the leader of that cult truly believe what he told his followers? Public tricks are not miracles and are not signs of divinity. Faith healers are a dime a dozen.
 
RAMOSS said:
Can you show it's any different with Christianity?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter if he does show you. You'd kick it to the curb just like you do all evidences for Christianity. Automatically, in your patented "Dr. NO" routine.
 
phattonez said:
Jesus appeared to the apostles. He appeared to 500 before the ascension. Thousands were baptized on Pentecost. All of these people were persecuted. These were all large, public events. You mean to tell me that thousands chose a life of persecution for something that they knew to be a lie?

No, and you know it. You just don't want to accept it because of the demands that it places on your life. The truth is always better than a lie.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

No, they chose a life of persecution for a strong belief, just as any other religious believers have done.
 
RAMOSS said:
Can you show it's any different with Christianity?
Click to expand...
Yes, there were public miracles. Feeding of 4000 and 5000. Healing of men born blind. Healing of lepers. Resurrecting Lazarus. Turning water into wine. Then there's Jesus Himself coming back to life and appearing to hundreds.

No cult has anything remotely similar to these public miracles.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom