Diogenes the Cynic

The didn't record anything. What is your point with this?
Again, what is your point with this?

Diogenes the Cynic

By the way, they were also almost certainly illiterate. It's kind of hard to write a history if you can't even read.

Atheos

Patriot7, I'd like to encourage you to look at this question from the perspective of the skeptic. Heck, try to do what several have suggested (by inference) and just apply the same standards to the Bible that you apply to the Koran. That's all the skeptics are doing here.

If you're predisposed to believe the Bible is the truth and the Koran is not true then you're going to mentally apologize for contradictions in the Bible that you'd lambast if you found them in the Koran.

The fact is that even conservative scholars almost unanimously agree that the four "gospels" were written no earlier than 30 years after the date of the events they allege. All of these books are completely anonymous. The very first evidence of any names being given to their respective authors comes from external evidence in the 2nd century (60-100 years after the books were written, depending on when you claim they were written). There is absolutely no internal evidence in support of any particular author. Any claim that these were "eyewitness" accounts is unfounded and comes from adherence to tradition rather than appeal to evidence. One could make a compelling argument that assigning authorship to these books goes contrary to the wishes of their originators as each evidently made an effort to remain anonymous.

None of the above facts are in reasonable dispute, except in very isolated circles.

There is a very big difference between claiming that "These are not eyewitnesses" and "They're a bunch of liars". It is entirely possible that events recorded by non eyewitnesses is true. Claiming that they are eyewitnesses in order to add artificial weight to their claims is doing a disservice, and is irresponsible. If these gospels were telling the truth it would be like trying to shore up the truth with a lie, something that should never be necessary.

But imagine the ridicule and laughter I'd face if I showed up with a document that was unsigned and undated but it claimed that the late Sam Walton left me his entire fortune. The entire document is written in the 3rd person by someone who didn't claim to have actually witnessed Sam telling anyone that he had left me his fortune, but believed that it happened because he had read it somewhere else and had even talked to a few people who had seen it happen. Yet the claim that Walton left me his fortune is not nearly as extrordinary a claim as the claim that a man walked on top of the water in the midst of a fierce storm out to a group of men frantically trying to keep their boat from sinking. And there are literally dozens of claims every bit as extrordinary or even more in these books.

Healthy skepticism in the light of such weak evidence for such extrordinary claims is the most reasonable reaction one could expect from individuals willing to be led by evidence but not by mass hysteria. Such scholars would cast equally skeptical eyes upon the Koran's claim that Mohammad split the moon, caused a date palm to weep, produced water from his fingers or that his food sang praises to Allah whenever he ate.

Appealing to "how many people believe/believed it" or "how many have died because they believed it" is an even worse logical fallacy than the one you keep accusing DTC of, namely "appeal to authority". A compelling case can be made that DTC is correct in stating the following:To summarize:

• Matthew doesn't claim to be written by "Matthew". It appears to have been written by someone using Mark and at least one other document (often referred to as 'Q').
• Mark doesn't claim to be written by "Mark". The very earliest claim of who wrote it is vague and comes from the middle of the 2nd century.
• Luke doesn't claim to be written by "Luke". Heck, whoever wrote it and "Acts" doesn't even claim to know Paul although I'm willing to concede that the "we" passages might support that claim. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that even if it were written by a travelling companion of Paul's that it was Luke, as Paul mentions many travelling companions in his writing. And finally, even if it could be proven with absolute certainty that Luke was the author there is no reason to believe Luke ever saw Jesus in person.
• John doesn't claim to be written by "John". It's one of the most heavily redacted books in the canonical NT (IOW there are lots of different ancient versions of this gospel) and the earliest claim that it was written by the apostle John comes from a questionable source in the LATE 2nd century.

Add to that the fact that Matthew and Luke disagree cataclysmically with each other about the genealogies of Jesus (the tradition that one was following Mary's lineage doesn't wash because there is absolutely no evidence for this unwarranted assumption other than a desire to resolve this discrepancy), the date Jesus was born (Couldn't have been during Herod's lifetime and during the census as Herod died 10 years prior to the census) and other details. Not to mention the impossibility of resolving Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

If you choose to believe these "gospels", that's your business. Apart from appeal to popularity there is absolutely no reason for anyone else to believe them. There is certainly no evidence-driven reason to conclude that they were written by eyewitnesses.

-Atheos

post tenebras lux

So, if the sources 'Luke' used in writing his gospel weren't concerned about recording history, then how much should we rely upon what 'Luke' wrote to actually be historical? Especially as 'Luke' says "taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word", which - to me at least - seems to suggest that 'Luke' is taking these sources as being truthful. Unless there is a difference between 'we believe Jesus did this' and 'we believe that, historically, Jesus did this'. :huh:

Also, if the sources 'Luke' relied upon weren't 'concerned about recording history', then what, pray tell, were they concerned about when they passed on their information in whatever way they passed it on (written, orally, etc.)?

Were thy perhaps trying to present a hagiography of Jesus? :huh:

TomboyMom

My kids do it to me all the time. Also waiters.

fromdownunder

TomboyMom

He didn't miss it, he just completely ignores the point that has has backed away from his own original argument (without saying so) and has now changed the subject so that he can continue .. well... whatever it is he is trying to continue.

Norm

buckshot23

That doesn't make it legitimate to place ridiculous standards upon interpreting it. Also I do not think this takes into account an accurate view of divine inspiration. I don't think it would be accurate to say that God controlled every word that the writers used. There definately is a human element in my opinion. The writers were inspired to write what was true while allowed some latitude on details and level of explanation on certain events. As in our appearance on the road from the tomb.
Number one we do not have to take every single word literally in the bible to avoid eternal punishment. Number two who said we are required to defend and uphold the bible to avoid eterrnal punishment?

sunspark

That's your opinion, not even a disputable fact. There is vast differing opinion among believers (never mind anyone else) as what constitutes "inpsiration". And that is a claim made by the Bible itself: the Bible says the Bible is inspired. What does that exactly mean or prove?

What are these "ridiculous" standards? Accuracy? Consistency? Please do inform us. I have no idea what these alleged "ridiculous" standards are that are being - as you appear to infer - impinged upon the Bible but no other document.

RED DAVE

From buckshot23:
Where did you get this bizarre idea? Do you have the original editorial manual?

RED DAVE

buckshot23

Maybe so.
If it is a contradiction then at least one of them is in factual error. However you have not shown that this is in fact a contradiction.
I must have missed the text in Luke that explicately states that Jesus did NOT appear to the women. Maybe that is in the skeptics annotated version.:huh:
Ahhh again I do not find where it says any appearance was the first one.
Well you deeply imply that the gospel writers never even knew or met eye witnesses. If I misread this
If you are not implying that the gospel writers didn't even know eyewitnesses let alone consult them then I would like to know what you did mean. In my opinion you cannot make these claims credibly.
Objectively?
Maybe you don't know what "objectively" means. Let me quote one gem of "objective" argumentation.
That is as subjective as it gets. Because YOU think this precludes it from being transcribed oral tradition then it must objectively be true.
I will grant this one and move on. It is not important enough in my opinion to continue this particular line of argument. However I disagree and I will leave it at that.

Remember that YOU said you could objectively prove that the traditional authors of the gospels are not the real authors. If I were you I would edit out of your "shredding the gospels" all references to subjective opinions. However there might not be much left.