aa5874

Well, if you already KNOW you could not ANSWER THE QUSETIONS why did you post this?

You know the questions of intent cannot be settled now.


A disagreement does not not make my position inaccurate. It is my opinion that there is no doubt that the Gospels were written as historical or to be believed as historical facts. Virtually all the Church writers, as recorded, claimed the Gospels, as found canonised, is true.

To hold a view that the Gospels were not written to be historical then such a person must at least show that a Church writer or an author of the Gospels did claim that Jesus was not on earth at any time as found in the canonised Gospels.

Minimalist

J-D

Why should we?

J-D

I never did pose the question 'What was the original intent behind the writing of the Gospels?'. The issue of intent was first raised by Toto, to whom you responded. I only commented on what you had said.Inaccuracy makes one of your statements inaccurate.Yes, it is, and your opinion is demonstrably wrong.People make all sorts of strange claims here all the time. I can't help that. When people post here that Mark was first written as fiction, I think they're wrong, but I don't know how to prove it to them. Do you?

aa5874

But, you actually think that they were intended to be historical yet for some weird reason to want to claim that I am inaccurate for having the same opinion.

You appear to want to restrict or eliminate my opinion even if it is similar to yours.

You cannot show that my statements are inaccurate. No Church writer or author of the NT, as found canonised, ever claimed the Gospels were not historical facts.


You cannot demonstrate that my opinion is wrong. Again, no Church writer or author of the NT did claim that the Gospels were fictitious or only theological writings with no historical value.

And, again, you think that they were intended to be historical. Just look at your previous posts.

You simply ARE demonstrating that you are confused. How in the world can you claim others make strange claims when you cannot demonstrate that your own opinion is not strange?

All I need are sources of antiquity that can support my opinion that the Gospels as found canonised were intended as historical or to be believed as historical.

mountainman

He wrote the first history of the gospels -- nobody in the 300
years before him thought that writing the history of the gospels
was a good idea. Eusebius swears that he knew in his heart of
hearts and intellect of intellects that the authors were named
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

After Eusebius wrote everyone jumped on the bandwaggon.
We could say in fact that there was a "Mass Belief" after E.
The "Mass Belief" related to the historical authorship of the
new testament by the four divinely inspired apostles. We
start with Eusebius because he is our only link to our
transcendental history.

Toto

Except for Papias, Marcion, Origen, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, etc.

Please provide a citation or stop typing this.

mountainman

These people are not recognised as "historians" neither do any of these Eusebian sources state that they are attempting to preserve a cohesive history of any form. Eusebius himself tells us in no uncertain terms that he is the very first to enter upon the task of researching the "history of the church". The following is from the opening chapter of his "Historia Ecclesiastica"

I take this to mean that Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea himself knew
of no other earlier ecclesiastical writer who had devoted himself to the
subject of the history of the "christian church and new testament".

What else are we to infer from such a statement?


As far as I am concerned I have already provided the citation.
You know, where Eusebius introduces the boneheads ....

It is quite apparent to me that in the following Eusebius section
of the same "History" Eusebius is trying to get us to believe that
the gospels were in fact written by the apostles. In fact, I
do not see how the following citation can be interpretted
in any other fashion.

Eusebius is just the first in a long line of fourth century
"church fathers" who vouch for and swear upon the
apostolic succession of the new testament canon.

EUSEBIUS, BOOK 3
Chapter XXIV. The Order of the Gospels.

Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in speech. ..

6 For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue,199 and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.

And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason.

The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.201


etc, etc, etc,

16 So much for our own account of these things. But in a more fitting place we shall attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, what others have said concerning them

Toto

That Eusebius was puffing himself up? You think he was a consumate liar, right?

Notice how often "they say" occurs. Eusebius is passing on a story that connects the gospels to the words of Jesus. He's doing what every Christian apologist does - provide a narrative that gives a satisfying explanation of they way things are. Why assume that he invented it himself, or that there is anything more to it?

mountainman

At the moment I am content to follow Richard Carrier's assessment
that Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous.

Eusebius needs to be regarded as both an "historian" and an apologist.
As an apologist he can behave in any way he wishes as get away with it.
That is not the case when we asess Eusebius as an historian.
He is presenting "a history" of the succession of the apostles
down to his present day, and he unequivocably states that the
authors of the gospels were the fabulous four on the floor.




Because the topography of academic and BC&H assessment
indicates that it is highly unlikely that the authorship of the
new testament was apostolic in the 1st century, but rather
the canon was authored in a later century.

What do we know of the 2nd and 3rd centuries?
What would we know of the 2nd and 3rd centuries without Eusebius?