Diogenes the Cynic

It is absolutely the mainstream consensus of even conservative Biblical scholarship that the Gospels are not journalistic history, were not written by witnesses and contain elements of fiction. Only a few nutcase religionists still try to argue otherwise. It also shouldn't even need to be said that impossible events cannot have been historical.

You are tragically, absurdly misinformed about where contemporary Biblical scholarship actually is and you seem to have little to no idea what the evidence is.


Your ranting about "apostates" really has no place in this forum. It's just a childish ad hominem. You are welcome to disagree with us but please try to actually discuss the evidence like an adult. Questioning someone else's "faith" credentials carries no weight around here. We do have some theists around here who are capable of defending their views on the evdience. Try to emulate them.

RUmike

You seem to be majorly disturbed by the Gospel of Thomas. Doesn't it disturb you even more that there is a decent amount of material that overlaps between the synoptics and GThom? That means "Thomas" got some stuff right... who's to say he didn't get any of the non-overlapping material right, too?

michael wellenberg

Of course I can reply only on my behalf. In my opinion Christian belief does not rest upon historical "facta bruta" because they could change. So, if someone turned up with the unequivocal evidence that Jesus did not exist, Christian belief would not collapse.

With regards

Michael

post tenebras lux

Thanks Michael, I assume you mean that your christian belief would not collapse. When I was younger and it was discovered that my local anglican bishop had once speculated on 'does it matter if Jesus really existed/did what the gospels claim?' (in his former role as a Prof of Theology), I can assure you that there was a massive stink made over it by the more 'traditional' wing of the CofE.

Unfortunately, I don't think Richbee answered my question (if he did, then I didn't see it within his latest cut'n'paste), so I'll ask him again.

Richbee, could you kindly confirm that - for you at least - if there is no historical backup for the existence of Jesus Christ, then your faith is 'just another set of beliefs'?

Richbee: hypothetically, would you remain a christian? (if there was no historical backup)

pharoah

How do you know that "Thomas" didn't write Thomas?

Julian

How is it possible to have heretics when there was no orthodoxy yet?

Julian

Richbee

Have you heard of the early creeds? (Note, GoT does not mention the resurrection - in Gnostism it is a "spiritual" resurrection.)

Richbee

Rubbish!

Quote:

If the four Gospel accounts were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (as the earliest evidence indicates), then Matthew certainly was a witness, as was John – the two being apostles of Jesus. Moreover, Mark was the son of Mary (Acts 12:12), and a companion of Peter (1 Pet. 5:13); he thus stands in close proximity to the events of Calvary.

EDIT ADD:

Credit: Wayne Jackson

http://www.christiancourier.com/penp...wsDisputes.htm

"A Skeptic Disputes the Resurrection"

Luke invesigated the eyewitness accounts and made "an orderly account:, and Luke ranks as one of the greatest ancient historians. - F.F. Bruce (He makes Herodotus look like a rookie.)

Diogenes the Cynic

Neither does the Gospel of Mark. Neither does the Q document embedded in Matthew and Luke. GThom is a sayings Gospel, not a narrative and the fact that it doesn't contain a resurrection story is a point in favor of early authorship.
GThom is not Gnostic. It was found in a Gnostic library but it is not Gnostic in content or origin. It's a collection of wisdom sayings and contains none of the key Gnostic ideas. It doesn't even claim Jesus was divine.

Doug Shaver

I've heard of several. Which one do you consider the earliest?